I want to apologize to all for being so busy with work and our Recent Decisions of Interest Newsletters that have tripled over the last 6 months. But I am back! Stay healthy and safe everyone.
Attorney's fees -- Civil rights -- Prevailing party -- Award of
prevailing party attorney's fees and expenses to plaintiff under 42
U.S.C. section 1988 must be vacated and remanded for additional
proceedings where jury awarded only nominal damages for defendant's
violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal
seizure and district court in determining reasonableness of a fee award
misapplied the law in measuring significance of the substantive issue
on which plaintiff prevailed or public purpose served by totaling up
number of times that Gray II, which was decided in plaintiff's
favor, had been cited -- It was error of law for district court to
conclude that simply because Gray II had been cited more than
fifty times during a two-year period, the substantive issue on which
plaintiff prevailed must be significant and public purpose served by
her victory must be substantial -- When citation-counting is used as a
method for assessing the significance of a decision in plaintiff's
favor, citation of the decision for humdrum, non-controversial, or
long-established points of law do not matter and must not be included
in the tabulation -- On remand, district court to decide whether
plaintiff is entitled to award of attorney's fees and expenses, even
though she recovered only nominal damages; and if so, whether she is
entitled to enhancement for delay in payment of expenses and for delay
in payment of attorney's fees; and if so, how much -- Calculation
errors to be avoided on remand noted
LAQUARIUS GRAY, a minor, by and through her mother and next friend,
Toniko L. Alexander, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTONIO BOSTIC,
individually and in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff for
Tuscaloosa County, AL, Defendant-Appellant, EDMUND SEXTON, etc., et
al., Defendants. 11th Circuit.
Elections -- Campaign financing -- Excess spending subsidy --
Injunctions -- Candidate for Republican Party for Governor of State of
Florida, who is not participating in Florida system of public campaign
financing, moved to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of provision of
Florida Election Campaign Financing Act, which provides participating
candidates with a subsidy to spend on their campaigns when a
nonparticipating opponent spends in excess of statutory expenditure
limit or $2 for each registered Florida voter -- Plaintiff is entitled
to preliminary injunction enjoining State from releasing funds to
opposing candidate under excess spending provision because he is likely
to succeed on merits of First and Fourteenth Amendment claim that
excess spending subsidy severely burdens his constitutional rights to
spend unlimited sums of personal funds and private donations in
furtherance of his campaign, burden on his right to free speech is
irreparable, and, as district court concluded, balance of harms and
public interest do not counsel against an injunction -- Under Davis v. Federal Election Commission,
excess spending subsidy imposes substantial burden on nonparticipating
candidate's right of free speech and is thus subject to strict
scrutiny, which requires that Florida justify the subsidy by
establishing that it furthers a compelling state interest -- Even if
subsidy furthers stated interest of Florida by encouraging
participation in public financing system and indirectly preventing
corruption or appearance of corruption, excess spending subsidy is not
least restrictive means of furthering the anticorruption interest --
Severability -- Even if issue of severance is premature, excess
spending subsidy is severable from $500 contribution limit
RICHARD L. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DAWN K. ROBERTS, In Her
Official Capacity as Interim Secretary of State of the State of
Florida, Defendant-Appellee, IRA WILLIAM McCOLLUM, JR.,
Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee. 11th Circuit.
Contracts -- Third-party beneficiaries -- Action by homeowners
association seeking declaration of rights under crossing agreement
between railroad and another homeowners association -- Trial court
properly dismissed action on ground that plaintiff homeowners
association is not a party to the agreement at issue and not a
third-party beneficiary of the agreement -- Plaintiff is not entitled
to relief as a third-party beneficiary where parties to agreement did
not intend that the agreement be for the benefit of plaintiff, and
agreement expressly excludes third-party beneficiaries
VENEZIA LAKES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Appellee. 3rd District.
Counties -- Injunctions -- Trial court erred in finding that county
denied property owner due process by not giving proper notice of
administrative hearing on code violation citation -- Record indicates
that notice of hearing was sent to owner at both his address of record
with county and the address listed at the top of his request for
administrative hearing -- Further, it is evident from record that owner
had actual notice of hearing -- Trial court erred in granting owner's
motion for temporary injunction on ground that owner had been denied
due process through administrative hearing process on citation, and
trial court was therefore entitled to intervene in administrative
hearing process
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, Appellant, vs. KEITH WILSON, Appellee. 3rd District.
Dissolution of marriage -- Alimony -- Modification -- Jurisdiction
-- Uniform Interstate Family Support Act -- Trial court had no
authority to transfer Florida post-final-judgment dissolution case to
foreign state in which both former spouses now reside -- Under UIFSA,
Florida court has continuing exclusive jurisdiction over spousal
support order throughout the existence of the support obligation --
Correct procedure under UIFSA is to register spousal support judgment
in another state for enforcement there; and even after registration,
foreign state must send the case back to Florida court to consider any
modification order
ANA ALVAREZ SOOTIN, Appellant, vs. JOHN SOOTIN, Appellee. 3rd District. Opinion filed August 4, 2010.
Guardianship -- Trial court abused discretion in appointing ward's
son-in-law as her plenary guardian where ward had executed a
declaration naming her three daughters as preneed guardians -- There
was insufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that the
designated preneed guardian is entitled to serve as guardian
MARIANNE MAGILL ACUNA & MARILYN MAGILL, Appellants, vs. JACK DRESNER, ET AL., Appellees. 3rd District.
Jurisdiction -- Service of process -- Substitute service -- Service
of process was defective where process server failed to note time of
service on copy of complaint delivered to the person served --
Requirement to note time on copy of complaint is statutory requirement
of service, and strict compliance with statutory requirements of
service is mandated -- Second service of process while appeal was
pending did not render appeal moot
JOSE E. VIDAL, Appellant, v. SUNTRUST BANK, Appellee. 4th District.
Receiverships -- Ex parte -- Mortgage foreclosure -- Error to
appoint receiver for property involved in mortgage foreclosure action
without providing notice and opportunity to be heard where mortgagee
failed to establish that ex parte receivership was necessary to avoid
immediate irreparable harm to mortgaged property or that giving notice
and holding a hearing would accelerate or precipitate any injury --
Although loan documents contained provision for appointment of receiver
as matter of right and without notice if foreclosure proceedings were
instituted, this alone is not dispositive of whether to grant ex parte
receivership and provisions of rule 1.610 are not thereby bypassed --
Argument that ex parte receivership was necessary to assist in sale of
property rejected -- Argument that ex parte receivership was
appropriate because mortgage documents contained assignment of rents
provision which provided for appointment of receiver in that context
was not raised as basis for appointing receiver; and, moreover,
mortgagee did not present verified allegation that any rents were
actually being collected on the property or that any such rents were
being dissipated -- Trial court also failed to enter appropriate ex
parte order where order did not contain any factual findings
JOHN R. DeSILVA, Appellant, v. FIRST COMMUNITY BANK OF AMERICA, a Federal Stock Savings Bank, Appellee. 2nd District.
Title insurance -- Trial court properly determined that title
insurance company was not liable for title insurance agency's
misappropriation of plaintiffs' escrow deposits for the purchase of
condominium units where escrow deposits were received by agency in its
limited capacity as escrow agency for developer, and the escrow
deposits were not received in connection with a transaction involving
the issuance of title insurance binders, commitments, policies of title
insurance, or guarantees of title -- Escrow deposits did not constitute
funds held in trust pursuant to section 626.8473, Florida Statutes
BERNARD WINKLER, ET AL., Appellants, vs. LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORP., ETC., Appellee. 3rd District.
Torts -- Automobile accident -- Damages -- New trial is required
where plaintiff's counsel made an improper appeal to passion and
sympathy of jury in opening statement, improperly convinced trial judge
to limit defense counsel's cross-examination of plaintiff's expert,
improperly attacked character of main defense expert during
cross-examination, and made improper and prejudicial closing argument
DANIEL GILBERT ANDREW CHIN, Appellant, v. WILLIAM ROGER CAIAFFA, Appellee. 3rd District.
Torts -- Damages -- Future medical expenses -- Abuse of discretion
to deny defendants' motion for new trial and motion for remittitur
where there was no competent substantial evidence presented at trial
that plaintiff was reasonably certain to need future medical treatment
-- Remand for new trial or, in the alternative, entry of amended final
judgment remitting award for future medical expenses -- Past medical
expenses -- Setoff -- Error to fail to determine and apply setoff for
personal injury protection benefits to award of past damages
ALICIA E. MONTESINOS AND HUGHETTE ESQUIVEL, Appellants, vs. JAVIER ZAPATA, Appellee. 3rd District.
Torts -- Nuisance -- No error in dismissing with prejudice complaint
in which plaintiff sought to recover damages to property allegedly
caused by overhanging branches and roots of neighbor's trees
encroaching on her property and damages resulting from plaintiff's
removal of portions of neighbor's tree intruding on her property
VIRGINIA T. SCOTT, Appellant, v. JULIE L. McCARTY, M.D., Appellee. 4th District.
The Law Lady. For more info about us, click here. To be added to our email circulation with MUCH, MUCH more law, click here and specify whether you wish to be added to our CRIMINAL, CIVIL, or FEDERAL Recent Decisions of Interest.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.