OVERVIEW

APPEALS AND ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS

TRIAL SUPPORT

APPELLATE MEDIATION

MOCK ORAL ARGUMENTS

NOTEWORTHY CASES

Florida Hosp. Waterman v. Buster, 932 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
(Sawaya, Orfinger, Torpy)

The Buster case dealt with the applicability of Amendment 7, also known as the "Patient's Right to Know" Amendment, passed by the voters in 2004. It also involved the constitutionality of a statute passed after the Amendment took effect. Following a successful result in the Fifth District, it is currently pending in the Florida Supreme Court and was consolidated with a similar case from the First District Court of Appeal. The outcome will have a state-wide impact on this provision in the Florida Constitution. Oral arguments took place in June, and Chris Carlyle was interviewed before and after the argument by numerous news organizations. Hospitals, doctors, plaintiff's attorneys, and patients throughout the State are awaiting the Supreme Court's decision.

Florida Hematology & Oncology v. Tummala, 927 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
(Lawson, Orfinger, Torpy)

The Tummala case involves an interesting question of law arising under Florida's restrictive covenant (sometimes referred to as "non-compete") statute, concerning whether physicians who refer to a doctor who has left a practice can constitute a legitimate business interest of the former practice. The trial court ruled in favor of our client, Dr. Tummala, and the Fifth District affirmed. The Florida Supreme Court granted discretionary review and oral arguments were completed in April. The case has potential ramifications for doctors throughout the State of Florida, as well as any businesses that include restrictive covenant in their contracts with employees.

Getzer v. Diamond, 920 So. 2d 1235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
(Monaco, Pleus, Torpy)

The Carlyle Appellate Law Firm represented an Orlando City Commissioner, Ernest Page, in an election challenge. The firm successfully defended the incumbent candidate in a case that involved the interpretation of the City of Orlando's election ordinance.

Mihelich v. Travers, 889 So. 2d 837 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
(Torpy, Palmer, Orfinger)

The Personal Representative of the estate of a participant in the Florida State Water Ski Championships sued approximately eight defendants in what was an approximately 15 count complaint. At the trial level, Chris Carlyle obtained summary judgment on behalf of all defendants against all counts and the Fifth District affirmed all but one of the counts against one defendant.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Barnes Family Chiropractic, 875 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
(Palmer, Sharp, Pleus)

Allstate attempted to disqualify our client's trial counsel because the lawyer had previously worked as in house counsel for Allstate. After trial counsel successfully defended against the insurer's prolific efforts to disqualify her, the trial court awarded attorney's fees (which had reached over $1.5 million) on the basis of two statutes. Allstate petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Fifth District and the appellate court upheld the award. The Court ruled that although one statutory basis was improper, the other statute provided for an award of attorney's fees as long as the insured prevailed in the underlying suit.

Brown v. Brown, 873 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
(Griffin, Peterson, Monaco)

A father appealed the apportionment of settlement proceeds arising out of a motor vehicle accident that claimed the life of their 14 year old daughter. The trial court had awarded our client, the mother, a greater portion of the proceeds reasoning that her pain and suffering damages were greater because she was primary residential custodian of the child, and following the parties' divorce, the father had moved out of state and did not have a close relationship with his daughter. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.

Strout v. Campbell, 864 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
(Thompson, Pleus, Torpy)

This case dealt with the International Child Abduction Remedies Act which implemented the Hague Convention. After a mother absconded with her children to Germany, the trial court awarded primary residential custody of the children to our client, the father. The mother appealed, arguing that the lower court erred in failing to give full faith and credit to a German court's order that determined the children should remain with the mother. The Fifth District disagreed, holding that the Convention did not divest the court of jurisdiction where the children's home state was Florida prior to the parental kidnapping. The opinion clarifies an interesting area of law and relies heavily on the arguments and reasoning contained in our Answer Brief.

Ormond Beach v. Citation Mortg., Ltd., 835 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
(Palmer, Cobb, Pleus)

Ormond Beach involved a complex interplay between the circuit court, the Federal Bankruptcy court, and section 768.79, Florida's offer of judgment statute. The trial court ruled that a party's voluntary dismissal without prejudice precludes the other party from collecting attorney's fees. The Fifth District agreed and as a result, our clients were not required to pay approximately $2 million in attorney's fees and costs.

Darden v. Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs., 763 So. 2d 542 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
(Dauksch, Harris, Pleus)

The trial court dismissed a third amended complaint filed in a wrongful death action on the basis that the applicable statute of limitations had run prior to the filing of the complaint. We represented the estate on appeal, and were successful in reversing the decision and having the case reinstated. The Fifth District agreed with our argument that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190 precluded the dismissal because the "relation back" doctrine applied. The court reasoned that the new defendant and the original defendant, who was the parent company of the new defendant, possessed identities of interest sufficient to justify the application of the doctrine.

Ligouri v. Beverly Enterprises, 762 So. 2d 1039 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
(Harris, Peterson, Griffin)

In this wrongful death case arising out of nursing home's negligence, the trial court dismissed our client's complaint with prejudice after his prior trial counsel had numerous unsuccessful attempts to amend. Recognizing that trial courts are afforded broad discretion in dismissing complaint with prejudice after numerous attempts to amend, the Fifth District nevertheless reversed finding an abuse of discretion. As a result, our client, now represented by new trial counsel, successfully proceeded with the nursing home neglect case.