This case was never the subject of an appeal. It was the only successful case against an organ procurement organization. None had ever found the way to get the cases to trial. Here, an organ procurement supervisor forged the permission of the parents of a 7 year old Haitian child and pushed, causing the removal of the organs before the child was brain dead. This trial was played on Court TV and was the center of a great deal of media attention at the time.
This was a case of a careless driving ticket, where the only available defense was to challenge the form of the Uniform Traffic Ticket, which was used at the time for all Summary Conviction (Misdemeanor) Offenses. The Court of Appeal held that the form of the summons was not valid. The decision was upheld, and every ticket for every offense other than speeding was dismissed in every court in every town and city throughout Ontario, Canada. The Uniform Traffic Ticket was no longer available for many months as the new form required an act of the legislature.
On the verge of trial on a pharmaceutical products liability case against The Upjohn Company, the Fourth District Court of Appeal of California ruled in the Bristol Myers case that any knowledge of wrongdoing triggered the Statute of Limitations. This was fatal to the Norgart case. In response, we agreed to a summary judgment against the Norgarts and encouraged the First District Court of Appeal of California to reject the holding in the Bristol Myers case. The First District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed. Subsequently, the California Supreme Court reversed the First District's decision on other grounds, leaving the First and Fourth Districts' cases in conflict. The law as to the Statute of Limitations is not resolved in California. In its holding, however, the California Supreme Court elaborated on the client's method of accepting a Final Judgment without losing the right to appeal, and upheld the new method, where there previously had been no method. See also Norgart v. The Upjohn Company, 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 453.
This case has been used frequently as a precedent in child support arrearage cases. The Court of Appeal held that the defense of laches (delay in commencement of proceedings) is only applied in extraordinary circumstances where the facts clearly show extreme prejudice.
This case involved the issue of a Resulting Trust. The Third District Court of Appeal rendered a most significant precedent, which, for the first time, determines the legal considerations of how an asset that is held for one person in the name of another, is to be divided. It is the seminal case on the issue.
This case was newsworthy in that it was the first case that addressed Grandparents' rights in the adoption arena. There, the client lost in the Court below.
Read more...
This is the first and still the only reported case in Florida where a Former Husband was required to pay child support based on his potential, which was an amount far greater than the highest amount that he ever earned. The Fourth District Court of Appeal accepted the Arce case as the law in its District. In Arce, the Third District Court of Appeal gave a break to a supporting spouse who needed an absence for the purpose of improving his earning power, such as getting a higher degree in post graduate work. Mr. Ticktin not only argued to have Arce accepted in the Fourth District, but at the same time, he was successful in his argument that the Ledbetter case was beyond the bounds of Arce, and for the first time, Arce was given an upper limit.
|
In this case, the Defendant was accused of breaking and entering an abandoned house by entering through a partially opened door. Breaking and Entry was an offense of entering through an opening. This case successfully distinguished between a door, which was an "entrance" and an "opening" which was something other than an "entrance." This was an important legal precedent.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that it was improper for the trial court to set a bond amount to sustain a Lis Pendens without conducting an evidentiary hearing, and held that the amount of a bond should bear a reasonable relationship to the amount of damage which the property holder defendant can demonstrate will likely result if it is later determined that the notice of lis pendens was not justified.
This case set a precedent that holding that affected the legal profession. It held that a condition in the settlement offer made under the Offer of Settlement statute, which otherwise would have entitled the offeror to attorneys' fees was not viable if it required that the plaintiff relinquish all rights to sue about anything at any time, as it called for an impermissible condition.
This was a case where the client came to Mr. Ticktin on the verge of the hearing of a Motion for Summary Judgment. The case had been mishandled and dismissed with prejudice a decade prior, and there was no way to get around the doctrine of res judicata. Once a matter is determined, it is not permitted to be raised again. However, the factual background was so compelling, that the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the Summary Judgment based in the Doctrine of Manifest Injustice. This was the fourth time in the history of Florida jurisprudence, that the Doctrine was applied.
This was a suit against a physician who advised a cruise line that one of its employees was HIV positive. The Third District Court of Appeal held that the physician was allowed by law at the time of the disclosure, to tell the employer. That law is now changed.
Read more...
This case did not make new law, but it was based on an interesting fact scenario. There, a client who thought that he was buying a domestically permitted capuchin monkey, actually purchased a more violent primate, a macaque monkey which was infected with a dangerous virus, Herpes B.
Read more...
|