Publications
Despite timely service to the trial judge, the untimely filing of a Rule 1925(b) statement of matters complained of on appeal results in a waiver of all issues.
The appellant timely filed a notice of appeal from the relevant trial court order.
A jury award of zero damages may be awarded, even if medical expenses occur, if specific factors are found.
In an uninsured motorist action, the Fourth District Court reversed and remanded when the court found the trial court erred after denying the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
Exclusion of expert’s video simulation, because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the possibility of unfair prejudice, is not an abuse of discretion because the simulation could have caused jury to improperly defer to expert’s opinion.
In this automobile accident case, the Fourth District Court held that a trial court’s exclusion of a video simulation—because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the possibility of unfair prejudice—was not
EUO is a valid condition precedent to the insured’s duty to pay PIP benefits and the plaintiff’s failure to appear for EUO was unreasonable.
The Fourth District Court held, consistent with Nunez v. Geico General Insurance Company, 117 So. 3d 388, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 1315 (Fla.
Proper standard of review and appropriate remedy when appellate court reviews trial court’s order granting a new trial.
In this appeal from an automobile accident case, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed the proper standard of review, and the appropriate remedy, when an appellate court reviews a trial court’s order granting a new trial—specifically, on
In order for an expert’s testimony on permanency to be impeached, or otherwise rebutted, the jury’s ability to reject the testimony must be based on some reasonable basis in the evidence.
The defendants in this automobile negligence case appealed an order granting the plaintiff a new trial on the issue of damages after the trial court directed a verdict on the issue of permanency regarding one of the claimed injuries.
Trial court’s refusal to step in when asked to resolve discovery difficulties, thereby avoiding the ultimate sanction of dismissal, was an abuse of its discretion.
The trial court precluded the appellants’ experts from testifying at trial because the appellants failed to provide the experts’ reports in accordance with the trial scheduling order.
The Third Circuit holds that an employee’s violation of a return to work agreement requiring the employee to refrain from consuming alcohol did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The employee was employed as a driver/sales representative for a company, which was required to maintain strict drug and alcohol screening programs for its employees in accordance with the federal motor carrier safety regulations issued by the Dep
The Third Circuit rejects plaintiff’s gender identity claim, finding that an employer’s reason for selecting the plaintiff in a reduction in force was not a pretext for unlawful discrimination.
The Third Circuit held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence demonstrating that her termination through a reduction in force was a pretext for unlawful gender identity discrimination.
Plaintiff’s admission that he failed to secure a prison control room door, thereby creating an opportunity for an inmate to gain access to the control room, mandates dismissal of plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims.
The plaintiff asserted violations of the ADA and the FMLA following his termination from employment as a prison guard.