|
|
 |
|
July 29, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| September 10, 2004 |
By: Laurie Cunningham |
|
ichard Warner v. City of Boca Raton / 01-2206 / Florida Supreme Court
A Boca Raton ordinance that bans vertical grave markers at a city-owned cemetery does not violate Florida’s 1998 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously ruled.
In the first challenge to the act, the Florida Supreme Court held that the city’s restriction on upright monuments, statutes and memorials at the 21.5-acre cemetery does not interfere with the family members’ freedom of religious expression.
The city ordinance allows residents to put religious symbols on stone or bronze grave markers as long as they are flush with the ground. It also permits some vertical grave decorations within 60 days of burial and religious holidays.
The court’s 5-0 ruling established clear guidelines for determining whether a city ordinance or state law violates a Florida citizen’s freedom of religion. Because the case was argued before they joined the court, Justices Raoul Cantero III and Kenneth Bell did not participate in the decision.
The high court held that the Florida constitution provides broader protection to a citizen’s religious expression than the federal standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court. Under Florida’s act, the test is whether the government regulation places a “substantial burden” on the free exercise of religion, Justice Peggy A. Quince wrote for the court.
The court defined substantial burden as a rule that “either compels the religious adherent to engage in conduct that his religion forbids or forbids him to engage in conduct that his religion requires.”
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the government rule or regulation constitutes a substantial burden on his or her free exercise of religion. Once this threshold is met, the burden shifts to the government to prove it has a compelling interest in enacting the ordinance or law.
In the Boca Raton case, the families who challenged the ban on the upright crucifixes, Stars of David and religious statutes they had placed on their love ones’ graves did not prove that the regulation violated their religious freedom, the Florida Supreme Court said.
The court upheld the ruling of U.S. District Judge Kenneth Ryskamp in West Palm Beach. In 1999, Judge Ryskamp said marking graves with religious symbols constituted a religious practice. But whether the symbols were displayed vertically or horizontally was a matter of personal preference — not a religious practice protected by Florida law, Judge Ryskamp said.
Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the families appealed Judge Ryskamp’s decision to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which referred the case to the Florida Supreme Court for interpretation of Florida’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
U.S. CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEAL
David Morrison v. Magic Carpet Aviation / 03-00749 / 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
An Orlando-based aviation company and its subsidiaries did not violate the 1993 Family Medical Leave Act when it fired a pilot who asked for more than two weeks off to deal with his depression, the appellate court ruled.
Under the act, David Morrison, claimed he was entitled to a four-week medical leave from Magic Carpet Aviation, which is contracted to fly Orlando Magic basketball players and staff to NBA games across the country.
The appellate court upheld the district judge’s ruling dismissing the case on summary judgment because the Family Medical Leave Act applies only to companies with at least 50 employees within a 75-mile radius of the worksite. The appellate court held that Morrison’s worksite was the airplane he flew, which did not have more than 50 employees on board. Therefore, the federal act does not apply, the court held.
The appellate court also rejected Morrison’s arguments his real employer was RDV Sports, which owns the company that held the contract with Magic Carpet Aviation, because RDV had no direct control over Morrison.
FLORIDA DISTRICT COURTS OF APPEAL
Marjorie Willis v. Gami Golden Glades LLC / 03-2657 / 3rd DCA
Florida’s impact rule bars a hotel guest from suing the owner of a Holiday Inn for its security guard’s failure to protect her from getting robbed after directing her to park her rental car in a lot across the street from the hotel, the court ruled.
The impact rule requires a plaintiff to prove physical harm in order to recover damages for emotional distress. In this case, Marjorie Willis claims she suffered anxiety, depression, panic attacks and post-traumatic stress disorder after she was robbed at gunpoint in the parking lot across from the hotel. The hotel security guard had directed her to park there because the hotel lot was full. When Willis expressed reservations, the security guard told her it was safe. After she was robbed, the security guard refused to help her and pretended he didn’t know her, Willis claims.
Willis sued Gami Golden Glades, which owes the Holiday Inn, and the security company provided the guard. But Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Gill Freeman dismissed the suit on the basis that Willis had failed to satisfy the impact rule because she failed to show physical harm.
The 3rd DCA upheld Freeman’s ruling on the basis of controlling case law. But the panel certified the case to the Florida Supreme Court as a question of great public importance on whether Florida’s impact rule should be abolished.
Christopher Advertising Group v. R & B Holding Co. / 02-3166 / 3rd DCA
The court ordered a new trial in a case involving an advertising agency that was awarded $4 million by a jury because it was barred access to its computers and records when it was locked out of its offices at Kendall Toyota.
The panel agreed with the trial judge that the evidence did not support the jury award. But the court ordered a new trial so the advertising agency could present evidence that was barred during the first trial.
During the first trial, the agency owner, Paul Christopher, testified that after Kendall Toyota fired his agency, he was denied access to his records and computers. Christopher claimed the loss of his database cost him $1 million. The jury awarded him that amount, plus an additional $3 million on his civil theft claim.
After the trial, Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Herbert Stettin reduced the jury verdict to $65,500 for the actual cost of the computers and lost commission. But the appellate court sent the case back to trial. The panel said the jury should be able to consider Christopher’s cost in re-creating the database and his lost profits when assessing the “fair value” of the property the agency was deprived of during the lockout.
Rosa Fisher v. Miami-Dade County / 03-1176 / 3rd DCA
The personal representative of a passenger who was killed while riding in a car that crashed into a pole during a police chase cannot sue the county for violating police procedures, the court said.
Under Miami-Dade police policies, officers can only initiate a high-speed chase when they have a reasonable belief that the fleeing suspect has committed or attempted to commit a violent felony.
But the appellate court held that a police officer owes no duty to a passenger in a car being pursued by the police. “Requiring police officers to first determine whether there was a passenger and then determining if the passenger was involved in a crime would essentially halt any police pursuit,” the panel said. “That result makes no sense considering that the police are our thin blue line protecting society.”
|
Search the archive for more stories.
|
|
|
 |
|
lawjobs Featured Ad
Associate
Dynamic, multi-practice law firm seeks associate with 1-2 years exp. for litigation in workers' comp. department; excellent salary and benefits.
Please fax resume to
(954) 938-7902 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
