Florida Courts Research Articles

Piercing the Corporate Veil in Haitian Poisoning Affair Rejected in First Instance: German HELM AG Not Found Liable under Dutch Corporate Law

In its award of 15 July 2009 the Florida Court of Appeal (Third District) ruled that Florida Courts had jurisdiction over a parent company (HELM), but not over its Dutch subsidiary company (Vos) that had caused severe damage in Haiti. Vos had purchased glycerine from China and, although the glycerine was impure and tainted, it had proceeded to sell the glycerine to one of its customers in Haiti after affixing false labels to it. In its judgment of 2 July 2015, the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County declined to pierce the corporate veil under Dutch law and to hold HELM liable for the ‘despicable’ alleged actions of its subsidiary. In March 2016 an appeal has been lodged against the Court’s award with the Florida Court of Appeal (Third District).

Racial, Ethnic, and Immigrant Threat

Objectives: The racial threat perspective argues that racial minorities are subjected to greater punishment in places with large or growing minority populations. However, prior research has focused largely on Black populations while devoting limited attention to potential “Latino threat” or “immigrant threat” effects. To address these gaps, this study explores the effects of racial, ethnic, and immigrant threat on sentence disposition (jail, prison, or community corrections) and sentence length. Methods: Using 2000 through 2006 data from the Florida Department of Corrections Guideline database, we use multilevel modeling techniques to explore the effects of racial, ethnic, and immigrant threat on state criminal sentencing. Results: The results provide support for racial/ethnic threat theory among Black but not Latino defendants. Black defendants are more likely to be sentenced to prison and are given longer sentences in counties with growing Black populations. In contrast, Latino sentences are not significantly influenced by Latino population growth. Results provide no support for immigrant threat positions. Conclusions: Overall, our findings offer a complex picture for racial/ethnic and immigrant threat. However, one pattern remains clear. Within Florida courts, Black defendants continue to be the prime targets for effects of racial threat and resulting disadvantages in criminal sentencing.

Testing the Packer Theorem: The Efficiency of Florida’s Criminal Circuit Courts

Herbert Packer’s models of the criminal process are criminal justice theorems, often the foundation of student introduction to the field in introductory textbooks. To date, there is little empirical analysis of the conceptual foundations of the process-based models, namely that courts are more efficient through the utilization of plea bargains, while an increase in trials necessarily decreases efficiency. The present results reveal wide variability in Florida circuit criminal court efficiency within and between circuits from 2004/05 to 2010/11. Regression analysis revealed that the year over year difference in both plea bargain (β = .14) and trial percentage (β = .13) significantly predicted (p < .05) year over year changes in efficiency, but explained a small amount of the variance (R 2 = .026) controlling for other factors (total model R 2 = .58–.62). These results show there is more capacity for trials within the Florida courts, and an increase in trials does not negatively impact court efficiency as expected but that other factors are far more relevant in explaining changes in efficiency outcomes. Furthermore, the Packer “assembly line” analogy, a basic tenet of the criminal process, is not found: plea bargains do not strongly predict or explain court efficiency, with structures playing a greater role in court outcomes than the processes conceptualized by Packer. The application to courts and impact on criminal justice education are discussed.

The Legislative Process in the State of Florida

Historically, Florida failed to retain legislative history resources because the Governor was disproportionately involved in the law-making process, the view materials were not very important, and the lack of materials limited their early use for exploration of legislative intent. Once resources became more readily available, Florida court opinions began to explore when legislative history should be introduced as evidence of intent, what materials would be admissible, and how much weight the legislative resources should be afforded. Today, although Florida still has some issues with broad accessibility of historical legislative history material, the Florida courts have acknowledged there are times when these materials need to be considered in determining the proper interpretation of Florida statutes.

Closing the Schiavo Case: An Analysis of Legal Reasoning

The conflict surrounding Terri Schiavo, whom Florida's courts had determined wished not to be kept alive in a persistent vegetative state, played out on a national stage. The dispute between Schiavo's husband and parents engulfed America's legislative, executive, and judicial systems, raising profound questions about the laws and policies that govern advance directives. In this paper, we offer an analysis of the legal reasoning in Schiavo and offer predictions about the case's likely impact on law and policy in the future. We reviewed an extensive collection of case materials that included consensus definitions of persistent vegetative state, media reports, court decisions and briefs, legal chronologies, guardian reports, and Schiavo's autopsy report. We also reviewed cases cited as sources for legal reasoning used in Schiavo, including Quinlan, Cruzan, and Browning. We also examined the political, cultural, and media factors that affected the conflict. Based upon these reviews, we identified the legal reasoning that decided the Schiavo conflict. We found that Florida's constitutional right to privacy, a principle that shaped the Florida statutory and case law, guided the courts' consistent rulings. The conflict that characterized the case reflected profound differences in American politics rather than a failure of the medical and/or legal systems. The outcome of the Schiavo case remained consistent with established Florida statutory and case law, and honored Terri Schiavo's state constitutional right to privacy. Although Schiavo may not affect advance directive law and policy in palliative medicine immediately, evidence suggests it has already increased interest in creating living wills.

Reflections on the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Controversy

Despite the enormous attention it received, the Terri Schindler-Schiavo litigation is not legally significant. The litigation involved the application of a fairly wellsettled legal framework. This framework permitted, however, an unjust result. The controversy over Terri’s fate has, though, helped to focus attention on a consensus that is in need of re-examination. This paper explores the lessons that ought to be learned from the Terri SchindlerSchiavo litigation. After briefly discussing the basic facts and the complex litigation history, the paper considers the relevant federal constitutional and Florida law. The paper then critiques Florida law and explains the legal and moral considerations that ought to inform the re-examination that is so sorely needed. The most important effort needed is to restore the sanctity of life ethic. ESPITE THE ENORMOUS attention it received, the Terri Schindler-Schiavo litigation is not legally significant. In fact, a recent article on the case by John Robertson was entitled “Schiavo and its (In)significance.” Robertson describes the case as legally “routine” and concludes that the case “will have contributed little to end-of-life law, but will be remembered because of the bitter battle that erupted between her husband and her parents over whether her feeding tube should be removed, and the extraordinary efforts of Florida and then national politicians to overturn a judicial ruling in a pending case.” D As others have noted, Schiavo involved the application of a legal framework that has been developed in this country over a fifteen-year period from the mid-1970s through the early 1990s. This largely settled legal framework was described by Lawrence Gostin in an Life and Learning XIV 28 article on the Schiavo case: “Federal and state courts have reached a broad consensus on matters of death and dying since the seminal cases of Karen Ann Quinlan in 1976 and Nancy Cruzan in 1990. So too there has been substantial consensus in the bioethics literature. Courts and scholars have affirmed a person’s right to refuse lifesustaining treatment and concluded that this right remains intact even if the person is no longer able to speak for herself. Near relatives and the courts should adopt the same course of action the person would have chosen if competent.” The Schiavo case involved the application of this fairly wellsettled framework. The subsequent litigation over the Florida and federal laws that were designed to save Terri presented a number of interesting issues, but I do not think they are of much general applicability to these controversies. Both laws applied only to Terri and I think it was no surprise that the laws did not ultimately succeed in changing the outcome that had already been litigated in the Florida courts. After these efforts failed, Terri died on March 31, 2005. This is not to say that I approve of what happened in the Terri Schindler-Schiavo litigation. The legal regime that has developed in this country since the mid-1970s is terribly flawed. This paper will explore some of the principal flaws in the current consensus. The major defect in the current situation is that there has been a collapse in the traditional sanctity of life ethic. Our task is to restore this ethic. This is a cultural battle of enormous proportion; the battle here is not just or even primarily a problem of activist judges. The Schiavo case, although legally not very significant, has helped to open peoples’ eyes to the injustice of the existing legal regime and has helped to focus public scrutiny to a consensus that is sorely in need of reexamination. In this paper, I will attempt to explore the lessons that ought to be learned from this litigation. In section 1, I will set forth the basic facts. I will focus primarily on the litigation in the Florida courts that ended with the ordering of the withdrawal of Terri’s food and water. I will only refer briefly to the litigation in the Florida courts about the constitutionality of Terri’s Bill (the Florida law that authorized Governor Bush to restore Terri’s food and water) and to the litigation in the federal courts after Congress passed a law that permitted the federal courts to hear certain issues in the case. In section 2, I will discuss the federal constitutional law that bears on this controversy. In section 3, I will discuss the relevant Florida law. This discussion will

Ethics, the Constitution, and the Dying Process

FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS HAVE REACHED A BROAD consensus on matters of death and dying since the seminal cases of Karen Ann Quinlan in 1976 and Nancy Cruzan in 1990. So too has there been substantial consensus in the bioethics literature. Courts and scholars have affirmed a person’s right to refuse life-sustaining treatment and concluded that this right remains intact even if the person is no longer able to speak for herself. Near relatives and the courts should adopt the same course of action the person would have chosen if competent. If there is a broad judicial and scholarly consensus, then why were political leaders and the public so troubled by the heart-wrenching circumstances of Theresa Marie (Terri) Schiavo? A skeptical observer might conclude that the controversy was politically generated, fed by vivid media images of a young, vulnerable woman who appeared sentient. After all, the nation only recently experienced a presidential election in which family values, notably a culture of life, became salient. It may be that matters involving human life require fresh analysis in this new political landscape even though public opinion strongly supported the removal of Ms Schiavo’s feeding tube and opposed federal intervention. Beyond political explanations, the public expressed concern about several aspects of the case: (1) lack of factual and medical clarity—family members took divergent positions and commentators questioned the medical diagnosis; (2) withdrawal of hydration and nutrition—food and water were thought to have special moral significance; (3) the level of decision making—politicians clashed on whether intimate decisions should be made by the family or the government; and (4) the implications for the elderly and disabled, particularly the poor—concerns that the vulnerable would be abandoned and denied life-sustaining treatment. Before exploring these problems, it will be helpful to describe the remarkable facts and judicial history of the case (FIGURE). Terri Schiavo: Facts and Judicial History In 1990, fifteen years before she became a symbol of the right to life movement, Terri Schiavo, then 26, experienced cardiac arrest and sustained severe brain damage. Her plight prompted a contentious decade-long legal dispute that resulted in Ms Schiavo’s percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube being removed and reinserted twice. Shortly after Ms Schiavo’s cardiac arrest, her husband, Michael Schiavo, was appointed guardian, without objection from Ms Schiavo’s parents (Mr and Mrs Schindler). In 1992, Ms Schiavo received 2 medical malpractice awards, with most of the funds placed in trust for her care. This began a deep dispute about her treatment and the distribution of the malpractice award. The Schindlers’ attempts to remove Mr Schiavo as guardian and to keep their daughter alive began in the Florida courts in July 1993. The courts took painstaking care in finding the facts, including the appointment of 3 guardians ad litem—independent persons appointed to represent Terri Schiavo’s wishes and interests. During the next 2 decades, the District Court of Appeal of Florida rendered at least 10 decisions considering various aspects of the case; parties sought review by the Florida Supreme Court 4 times; there were several proceedings in the federal courts, including cases filed in district court and appealed to the 11th Circuit; and the US Supreme Court declined to provide relief to interested parties on 4 separate occasions. Throughout the process, the judiciary found that the husband acted appropriately and attentively, the medical diagnosis of persistent vegetative state (PVS) was reliable, and the evidence supported the husband’s conclusion that his wife would not want to live in that condition. Even the guardian ad litem appointed to report directly to the governor concurred. These findings remained constant, surviving numerous, but unsuccessful, motions including pleas for the

Schiavo and Its (In)significance

The question of removing Teri Schiavo's feeding tube electrified the country in March, 2005. Florida, like most states, had adopted a substituted judgment paradigm for decisionmaking for incompetent patients. Under that approach the case appears to have been correctly decided, and should have been resolved after final review by the Florida courts. By reframing the case as one of starvation of a conscious person with a brain injury, lawyers for Teri Schiavo's parents were able to generate massive public support from right-to-life and disability rights groups. This led to additional litigation and both state and national legislative attempts to overturn the results of an on-going judicial proceeding. These events demonstrate both the strengths and weaknesses of the substituted judgment paradigm, and the power of the right-to-life movement in judicial and policy decisions at the end of life. In the end the Schiavo case will have little significance in changing the law of end-of-life care. But it does show the influence that culture of life forces will exert on the legal and policy issues raised by biotechnology.

“Culture of Life” Politics at the Bedside — The Case of Terri Schiavo

The parents of Terri Schiavo, a Florida woman who was in a persistent vegetative state, objected to her husband's decision to discontinue artificial nutrition, and a protracted legal battle ensued. The Florida courts ordered the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube to provide care consistent with her wishes. The judicial decisions in the Schiavo case were consistent with legal precedent, but the interference in the case by the legislative and executive branches of the Florida and U.S. governments was unprecedented.

EroG .v hsuB and Its Disguises: Freeing Bush v. Gore from Its Hall of Mirrors

eroG .v hsuB and Its Disguises: Freeing Bush v. Gore from Its Hall of Mirrors

The Unbearable Wrongness of Bush v. Gore

The Unbearable Wrongness of Bush v. Gore

Measuring Diversion: The Florida Community Control Program

The prison crowding crisis has caused many states to implement intensive community supervision programs in an attempt to divert convicted offenders from prison. The Florida Community Control Program (FCCP), which places offenders under house arrest or electronic survelliance, is the largest, best-established prison diversion effort in the United States. During the last six years, Florida courts have used objective guideline criteria to sentence more than 25,000 offenders to the community control program. This article describes an effort to evaluate the impact of the FCCP on prison crowding in Florida. The research compares the characteristics of offenders sentenced to prison before and after the FCCP implementation and attempts to account for changes in sentencing policy in order to measure the diversionary effect of the program.