|
|
 |
|
July 29, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| February 08, 2010 |
By: Jordana Mishory |
|
number of important issues still wait to be resolved in the state of Florida. The following are some of the most high-profile cases pending before the state’s high court:
Case: Public Defender, 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida v. The State of Florida
Case no.: SC09-1181
Issue: Whether the Miami-Dade public defender’s office can withdraw from third-degree felony cases due to heavy caseloads
At stake: Miami-Dade Public Defender Carlos Martinez contends budget cuts have produced excessive caseloads preventing his attorneys from delivering effective representation. The 3rd District Court of Appeal overturned a high-profile decision by Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Stanford Blake that would have allowed public defenders to drop nearly 11,000 cases a year.
“The record does not demonstrate any correlation between the state budget reductions and a complete inability on the part of PD11 to handle any third-degree felony cases,” the unanimous three-judge panel wrote in an unsigned decision.
The 3rd DCA emphasized a solution lies with the Legislature or in the inner workings of Martinez’s office. State law does not allow public defenders to withdraw from cases based on inadequate funding or excessive workloads. Public defenders say the law violates the separation of powers doctrine because the Florida Supreme Court should regulate the Bar. The 3rd DCA said trial courts can consider withdrawals on a case-by-case basis.
In a case being followed by public defenders elsewhere, Martinez’s office appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which has not decided whether to accept jurisdiction. In the jurisdictional brief, Martinez’s office wrote the 3rd DCA decision precludes public defenders from obtaining relief in the face of excessive caseloads and hurts poor defendants. If state attorneys could contest a public defender’s decision to decline an appointment, prosecutors would have “a voice in determining who will defend against its prosecution,” Martinez’s office wrote.
Martinez’s office also tried another tactic, seeking withdrawal for one busy public defender. That case is pending before the 3rd DCA.
Martinez also has hired temporary help and sought pro bono representation.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/09/09-1181/Filed_07-10-2009_Petitioner_Jurisdiction_Brief.pdf
State’s jurisdictional response: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/09/09-1181/Filed_07-30-2009_State_Jurisdiction_Brief.pdf
Case: QBE Insurance Corp. v. Chalfonte Condominium Apartment Association Inc.
Case no.: SC09-441
Issues: Can an insurance company be sued for breaching implied warranty of good faith for failing to assess a claim within a reasonable time? If so, does the claim have to be brought after the fact like a bad-faith claim. Also, can an insurer’s hurricane deductible provision be voided if the contract does not comply with state law? And can an insurer delay paying a judgment until the end of an appeal even if the policy promises payment upon entry of final judgment?
At stake: Hurricane Wilma left a path of destruction across South Florida in 2005. Chalfonte in Boca Raton claimed its insurer, QBE, failed to promptly investigate its damage and settle its claim. QBE took almost 18 months to offer a loss value, forcing the condo association to pay for repairs with loans.
Chalfonte sued QBE, one of the largest insurers of condo associations, in federal court for breach of contract and breach of implied obligation to act in good faith. Chalfonte also claimed QBE’s hurricane deductible policy did not comply with type-size and language requirements. Chalfonte won $8.1 million, which a judge reduced to $7.2 million after finding he couldn’t penalize QBE for failing to comply with the deductible policy requirements. Chalfonte wanted to hold QBE to its written policy of paying within 30 days of final judgment, but the judge said the verdict could be stayed with a bond.
Both sides appealed, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sent five state law questions to the Florida Supreme Court. The biggest: Does Florida recognize a claim for breach of implied warranty of good faith and fair dealings? QBE said it’s the same as bad faith, which must be tried after a contractual claim to avoid prejudicing a jury.
A 2007 change in state law orders insurers to value a loss in 90 days absent extenuating circumstances.
QBE argues there is no penalty for failing to comply with deductible provision requirements and claims its policy substantially complied. Chalfonte said a noncompliant provision must be found void to give meaning to the statute. Oral arguments are set for March 4. A number of similar cases are pending against QBE.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2009/401-600/09-441_Ini.pdf
Chalfonte’s answer brief: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2009/401-600/09-441_Ans.pdf
Cases: Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. South Florida Water Management District; New Hope Sugar Company and Okeelanta Corp. v. South Florida Water Management District
Case nos.: SC09-1817, SC09-1818
Issue: Can the South Florida Water Management District borrow up to $650 million to purchase land for Everglades restoration?
At stake: The district wanted to issue $2.2 billion in certificates of participation bonds to acquire more than 180,000 acres of U.S. Sugar’s land to build reservoirs and treatment areas. Both the Miccosukee Tribe and U.S. Sugar’s competitor, Florida Crystals, tried to halt the deal, claiming it is unconstitutional.
Palm Beach Circuit Judge Donald Hafele validated part of the district’s request, authorizing the issuance of $650 million in bonds to purchase 73,000 acres. The land costs $536 million.
“The district has demonstrated a valid public purpose warranting partial, but not full, validation of COPs,” Hafele wrote, rejecting the plan to acquire another 107,000 acres.
Although the Miccosukees and Florida Crystals claimed a partial victory, they appealed Hafele’s ruling. In consolidated cases, they argued the issuance does not have the required public purpose and will serve to unconstitutionally benefit a private corporation by allowing U.S. Sugar to lease back the land it sells.
“If this court were to affirm the trial court, it would usher in an extreme expansion of the use of revenue bonds for pure land banking by public entities speculating on better economic times,” the tribe wrote in its Supreme Court brief. It also claims a public vote or legislative authority is required.
Florida Crystals noted the district had “no specifics as to when, where or how any project would be constructed.”
In response, the district claims the COPs will benefit Florida citizens and any short-term advantage to U.S. Sugar is “merely incidental.” The district, which dropped a planned cross-appeal, said the tribe and Florida Crystals would “require that any acquisition of land somehow magically result in the immediate materialization of mature construction projects.”
The purchase and sales agreement set a closing date of June 30. Arguments are set April 7.
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/09/09-1817/Filed_10-14-2009_Initial_Brief.pdf
New Hope Sugar Brief: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/09/09-1818/Filed_10-19-2009_Initial_Brief_New_Hope_Sugar.pdf
Water management response brief: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/09/09-1817/Filed_11-02-2009_Answer_Brief_SFWMD.pdf
Case: Jeffrey E. Lewis, et al. v. Leon County, et al.
Case no.: SC09-1698
Issue: Who must pay for the offices of regional conflict counsel?
At stake: As a cost-saving measure, the state Legislature created the Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional Counsel primarily to represent poor people when public defenders have conflicts. Under the 2007 law, lawmakers placed the financial burden of office space on counties.
The Florida Association of Counties and 26 counties, including Broward and Palm Beach, sued, claiming it was unconstitutional to force them to pay. They argued payments undermine a 2004 constitutional revision shifting the burden of court funding from counties to the state. The counties also contend paying for the offices is essentially an unfunded mandate.
The 1st District Court of Appeal unanimously upheld a trial court ruling in favor of the counties, saying the law “unconstitutionally shifts the funding responsibility for certain costs of court-appointed counsel from the state to the counties.”
The 2004 amendment provides for counties to pay for the offices of public defenders, but the Florida Supreme Court ruled conflict counsel are not the same as public defenders and do not perform the same constitutional duty, the 1st DCA wrote. The court also said the Legislature never formally considered the unfunded mandate issue.
The regional conflict counsel offices, represented by the attorney general’s office, maintains counties are required to pay for the overhead costs of “public entities that comprise the state court system.”
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/09/09-1698/Filed_10-02-2009_Initial_Brief.pdf
Leon county response: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/09/09-1698/Filed_10-22-2009_Answer_Brief.pdf
Volusia County response: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/09/09-1698/Filed_10-23-2009_Volusia_Answer_Brief.pdf
Case: Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, etc. v. Dwight E. Brock, etc.
Case no.: SC09-2190
Issue: Whether county clerks have the power to investigate county funds not in their custody and audit county spending
At stake: Collier County Clerk of Courts Dwight Brock sued the county in 2004 over a secret account containing $21,000. He wanted a judge to declare he had the right to oversee the money and began to investigate other county accounts, eventually finding nearly 10 off-the-books accounts.
The County Commission countersued, arguing Brock lacked the power to audit county spending and search for accounts. In 2007, a trial judge sided with the county, saying the clerk’s authority to prepare financial statements flows from the County Commission. The judge also ruled Brock did not have the authority to investigate funds not under his control and audit county spending.
In a 2-1 decision, the 2nd District Court of Appeal partially overturned the trial court, saying limiting the clerk’s ability to investigate county funds “would compromise the clerk’s duty and power to guard against the illegal use of county funds.”
The Florida Supreme Court has not accepted jurisdiction.
The Florida Association of County Attorneys and the Florida Association of Counties asked to file friend-of-the-court briefs in favor of Collier County. The county claims the 2nd DCA went overboard with a ruling that “appears to grant county clerks unlimited power to conduct post-payment audits of county boards at any time and for any reason.” The commission questioned the clerk’s auditing powers and feared a chilling effect on the board’s planning role.
If the court accepts the case for review, the Florida Association of Court Clerks wants to file a brief supporting Brock, saying a ruling in favor of the county would neuter the clerks’ watchdog duties.
The case doesn’t affect all counties because some have other audit arrangements. Virginia Delegal, general counsel to the counties association, said it will have the biggest impact on 47 nonchartered counties.
Collier County’s jurisdictional brief: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2009/2001-2200/09-2190_JurisIni_ada.pdf
Brock’s jurisdictional brief: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2009/2001-2200/09-2190_JurisAns_ada.pdf
Case: In re: standard jury instructions
Case no.: SC10-51
Issue: Use of electronic communications or Internet research by jurors in pending cases
At stake: An Arkansas judge declared a mistrial after a juror on a panel that awarded a $12.6 million verdict tweeted about the case during trial. In Miami-Dade, a case was dismissed after a witness on the stand texted with his boss about the case. And in Broward, a juror was dismissed after he did cell phone research during lunch on the first day of trial.
As handheld technology has boomed, so has the problem of its use by jurors, who can easily look up a legal question on a cell phone. They also tweet, text and post Facebook updates after being told not to communicate with others about the case.
At the behest of Florida Supreme Court Justice R. Fred Lewis, the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Civil Cases and the Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases looked into the issue.
The committees jointly proposed jury instructions that emphasize avoiding electronic communications and online research. Judges would be required to tell jurors they must not use any device to search the Internet, can’t send or receive e-mail or text messages, and cannot post, blog, text or tweet about the case or write about it in Facebook.
One proposed instruction requires a judge to tell prospective jurors before selection: “I want to stress that this rule means you must not use electronic devices or computers to communicate about this case, including tweeting, texting, blogging, e-mailing, posting information on a Web site or chat room, or any other means at all.”
The proposal calls for repetition throughout jury service: when prospective jurors arrive in the jury assembly room, before selection, after the jury is sworn in and during closing instructions. The proposed instructions are harsher than initial rules, which indicate a juror must avoid hearing about the case, reading about it or doing research.
The committees questioned whether courts should take away cell phones and other devices. Recently, the Michigan Supreme Court approved a rule banning jurors from using electronic devices during trial.
The Supreme Court is accepting comments on the proposed rule through March 17.
Other pending issues:
The court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case questioning whether retroactivity applies to a 2005 law requiring people suing over asbestos-related injuries to meet a medical threshold. The law was intended to curb suits by people who don’t show symptoms of lung disease and enable the sickest claimants to reach court first. The 4th District Court of Appeal ruled the law is unconstitutional when applied to pre-existing cases.
Two challenges to the state’s Save Our Homes law have been appealed but not accepted by the justices. One by nonresidents challenges reserving the cap on annual property tax assessments for residents with homestead exemptions. The petitioners contend it discriminates against nonresidents. Another claims the tax shelter unfairly benefits long-term residents over new arrivals.
The 4th DCA ruled rental car companies could not be held liable for accidents by their drivers under a 2005 federal law. A customer who sued Enterprise Leasing for a crash claimed a 2007 state law falls under federal exceptions, which can’t supersede state laws that impose financial responsibility or insurance standards on rental car companies. The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments next month.
In December, 68 attorneys petitioned the state Supreme Court to establish a Florida Actual Innocence Commission to investigate cases where actual innocence has been demonstrated and recommend reforms to prevent wrongful convictions. The petitioners noted at least 11 innocent people have been wrongfully convicted in Florida. Former American Bar Association president Sandy D’Alemberte filed the motion on behalf of petitioners including several former Florida Supreme Court justices.
Petition: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/summaries/briefs/10/10-51/Filed_01-14-2010_Petition.pdf
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
