Florida Supreme Court Oral Arguments

In 2016, voters approved an amendment to the state constitution to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes. The Amendment requires the Department of Health to issue regulations to implement and enforce its safe use. In 2017, the Florida Legislature amended a Florida statute governing medical marijuana in relation to the constitutional Amendment. Florigrown and others filed a lawsuit in the trial court challenging the constitutionality of the statute. The trial court entered a temporary injunction against the enforcement of the statute based on a determination that Florigrown has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. The Department of Health appealed to the First District Court of Appeal, which agreed with the trial court but certified a question of great public importance to this Court for review. Case history can be viewed here.

Mr. McKenzie was sentenced to six months incarceration, two years community control, and three years probation for engaging in sexual activity with a child. After Mr. McKenzie completed his sentence, the State of Florida filed a notice to designate him as a sexual predator, and the trial court imposed the designation. Mr. McKenzie appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal arguing that the trial court did not have the authority to designate him as a sexual predator. The Fifth DCA agreed with Mr. McKenzie. The State of Florida asks this Court to review the decision because it conflicts with another appellate court decision. Case history is available here.

MRI Associates of Tampa submitted bills to State Farm for medical services provided to individuals insured under State Farm’s Personal Injury Protection (PIP) policy. MRI Associates of Tampa and State Farm disagreed on the amounts payable and the calculation method used to determine reasonable charges for reimbursement according to State Farm’s PIP policy and Florida law. The trial court ruled against State Farm and its calculation method. State Farm appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision of the trial court but certified a question of great public importance to this Court. Case history can be found here.

The Attorney General has petitioned the Court to review a proposed citizens' initiative on the adult use of marijuana, asking whether it meets two legal requirements: (1) It contains only a single subject; and (2) It has a fair ballot summary. The Court will also consider whether a new law affects its review of the initiative. Case history can be found here.

Mr. Lawrence was charged with being a principal in the May 1998 first-degree murder of 18-year-old Jennifer Robinson, who was fatally shot. He pleaded guilty, the jury voted 11-1 to recommend a death sentence, and he was condemned. This Court upheld his sentence of death on direct appeal and subsequently affirmed the denial of his initial postconviction motion and denied his petition for writ of habeas corpus. Mr. Lawrence then filed a successive postconviction motion in the trial court seeking a new penalty phase pursuant to Hurst v. State. The trial court vacated his death sentence and ordered a new penalty phase. He was sentenced to death on resentencing, and this direct appeal followed. Case history can be found here: http://onlinedocketssc.flcourts.org/DocketResults/CaseDocket?Searchtype=Case+Number&CaseTypeSelected=All&CaseYear=2018&CaseNumber=2061

Mr. Beamon pleaded guilty to the first-degree murder of a fellow inmate, Bruce Hunsicker, who was fatally stabbed and strangled at the Apalachee Correctional Institution in 2012. Mr. Beamon waived his right to a penalty phase jury trial and did not present mitigation evidence. The trial court sentenced Mr. Beaman to death. This is his direct appeal. Case history can be viewed here: http://onlinedocketssc.flcourts.org/DocketResults/CaseDocket?Searchtype=Case+Number&CaseTypeSelected=All&CaseYear=2019&CaseNumber=436

Arch Insurance Company hired law firm Kubicki Draper to defend an insured party in an accounting malpractice case. The lawsuit settled within the policy limits. Arch Insurance Company then sued Kubicki Draper for legal malpractice, alleging that Kubicki Draper should have raised a statute of limitations defense in the original litigation and that the law firm’s failure to do so significantly increased the cost of the settlement. The trial court ruled that Arch Insurance Company did not have the legal standing to sue Kubicki Draper. On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court but certified a question of great public importance to this Court regarding standing. Case history can be found here: http://onlinedocketssc.flcourts.org/DocketResults/CaseDocket?Searchtype=Case+Number&CaseTypeSelected=All&CaseYear=2019&CaseNumber=673

The Florida Bar filed a petition with this Court against TIKD Services LLC, a smartphone service used to challenge traffic tickets, and Mr. Christopher Riley, Executive Director of TIKD Services, for engaging in the unlicensed practice of law. Mr. Riley is not a member of the Bar and is not licensed to engage in the practice of law in Florida. Mr. Riley disputes the allegation and argues the services provided by TIKD do not constitute legal advice or services. The judge-referee appointed to review the case recommends that this Court dismiss the Bar’s petition with prejudice. The Florida Bar challenges the referee’s recommendation. Case history can be found here: http://onlinedocketssc.flcourts.org/DocketResults/CaseDocket?Searchtype=Case+Number&CaseTypeSelected=All&CaseYear=2018&CaseNumber=149

This case involves the sale of a mausoleum cemetery business. Heritage Manor alleged that DFG unfairly induced the sale at less than fair market value by secretly coordinating with Heritage Manor’s former attorneys.  The jury rejected the argument but awarded Heritage Manor $2 million in compensatory damages and more than $2 million in punitive damages.  On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed both compensatory and punitive damage awards.  Heritage Manor asked this Court for review, arguing that the Fourth DCA’s decision conflicts with a decision from this Court and other appellate court decisions. Case history can be viewed here: http://onlinedocketssc.flcourts.org/DocketResults/CaseDocket?Searchtype=Case+Number&CaseTypeSelected=All&CaseYear=2018&CaseNumber=581

Ms. Marsh pleaded guilty to two counts each of driving under the influence (DUI) causing serious bodily injury and driving with license suspended (DWLS) causing serious bodily injury after she rear-ended another vehicle. The trial court sentenced her to five-year prison sentences on each count. Ms. Marsh appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal, claiming that convictions for both DUI with serious bodily injury and DWLS with serious bodily injury as to the same victim violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The Second DCA agreed. The State of Florida asked this Court for review, arguing the Second DCA’s decision conflicts with another appellate court decision. Case history can be viewed here: http://onlinedocketssc.flcourts.org/DocketResults/CaseDocket?Searchtype=Case+Number&CaseTypeSelected=All&CaseYear=2018&CaseNumber=1108