AUGUST URBANEK, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
THE 18TH HOLE INVERRARY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the doctrine barring subsequent actions for malicious prosecution after taxing costs does not apply to private litigants.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal certified a question regarding whether a prior decision applied to private litigants seeking to bar a malicious pr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Taxing Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review Urbanek v. 18th Hole at Inverrary Condominium Ass’n, 599 So. 2d 1056, 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed based on its earlier decision in Urbanek v. 18th Hole at Inverrary Condominium Ass’n, 582 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA), review dismissed, 587 So. 2d 1331 (Fla.1991), and certified the same question that it had certified in the prior case. In the first Urbanek case, the district court certified the following question:
WHETHER CATE v. OLDHAM [450 So. 2d 224 (Fla.1984) ] APPLIES TO PRIVATE LITIGANTS TO BAR A SUBSEQUENT ACTION FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION WHERE THE PLAINTIFF HAS PREVIOUSLY ELECTED TO TAX COSTS AND/OR FEES AFTER SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDING THE UNDERLYING ACTION?
Urbanek, 582 So. 2d at 155. We have jurisdiction based on article V, section 3(b)(4) of the Florida Constitution. We answer the certified question in the negative based on our decision in Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So. 2d 14 (Fla.1992). Accordingly, we quash the decision below and remand for proceedings consistent with this Court’s decision in Londono.
It is so ordered.
BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, grimes, kogan and HARDING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (33 total)
-
State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 2004)…ourt specifically declined to decide the issue. Much less has the Court held, or even implied, that such a right would extend to minors. Apparently recognizing this fact, the majority attempts to find such a right in our decision in Wyche v. State, 619 So. 2d 231, 235 (Fla.1993). The majority quotes the following memorable passage from Wyche: Hailing a cab or a friend, chatting on a public street, and simply strolling aimlessly are time-honored pastimes in our society and are clearly protected under Florida…1 / 2
-
State v. Brake, 796 So. 2d 522 (Fla. 2001)…impermissible for the Legislature to use such vague and broad language that a person of common intelligence must speculate about its meaning and be subjected to arrest and punishment if the guess is wrong. 343 So. 2d at 608; accord Wyche v. State, 619 So. 2d 231, 236 (Fla.1993). Additionally, the statute must define the offense in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. See State v. Mark Marks, P.A., 698 So. 2d 533, 537 (Fla.1997); Brown, 629 So. 2d at 842. A statute may…
-
City OF Hollywood v. Colon Bernard Mulligan, 934 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 2006)…§ 2(b), Fla. Const.; § 166.021(1), (3)(c), (4), Fla. Stat. (1999).3 Under its broad home rule powers, a municipality may legislate concurrently with the Legislature on any subject which has not been expressly preempted to the State. Wyche v. State, 619 So. 2d 231, 237-38 (Fla.1993) (citing City of Miami Beach v. Rocio Corp., 404 So. 2d 1066, 1069 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)); see also Barragan v. City of Miami, 545 So. 2d 252, 254 (Fla.1989) (stating that the municipal home rule powers act “limits cities from legisla…
Previewing 3 of 33 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Javier H. Londono, M.D. v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1992)
- Cate v. Oldham, 450 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1984)
- August Urbanek and Sidney Kohl v. The 18TH Hole AT Inverrary Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 582 So. 2d 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- August Urbanek and Sidney Kohl v. The 18TH Hole Inverrary Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 599 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Kenon v. State, 599 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)