LARRY TUDOR, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal of negligence action against FDLE for failure to comply with expungement order, holding that agency non-compliance with court orders does not give rise to common law negligence claims.
An agency's failure to comply with a court order does not give rise to a common law negligence action, though the party may seek enforcement of the order and compensatory sanctions for proven economic losses.
[1] An agency's failure to comply with a court order does not give rise to a common law negligence action, though the aggrieved party may seek enforcement of the order and co…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLarry Tudor sought damages in negligence against the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for its failure to comply with a 1991 court order directing…
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 Compensatory Sanctions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Larry Tudor, appeals the trial court’s final order dismissing with preju dice his negligence action against the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE). The allegations of the complaint sound in negligence, predicated on FDLE’s failure to comply with a 1991 court order directing FDLE to expunge appellant’s criminal history records. We affirm.
FDLE’s failure to comply with the 1991 court order gave appellant the right to return to the trial court for enforcement of the order to expunge, and to request compensatory sanctions for any economic losses which appellant was able to prove he sustained as a result of FDLE’s non-compliance. See Parisi v. Broward County, 769 So. 2d 359 (Fla.2000); Johnson v. Bednar, 573 So. 2d 822, 824 (Fla.1991). However, we do not believe that the agency’s failure to comply with a court order gives rise to a common law negligence action such as has been put forward by appellant in this case. The parties have been unable to provide legal authority directly addressing this concept, and our independent research has failed to disclose authority for such principle.
Accordingly, the trial court’s order of dismissal with prejudice is affirmed.
JOANOS, LAWRENCE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walker v. The Fla. Dep't OF LAW Enf't, 845 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…n of matter which is of legitimate public concern). Moreover, FDLE’s failure to have properly and completely complied with the court order of expungement did not give rise to an independent cause of action. Tudor v. State Dep’t of Law Enforcement, 768 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). We agree with the Tudor court that appellant’s remedy is the right to return to the trial court which ordered the records expunged to seek compensatory damages for economic losses which the defendant is able to establish as a re…
Authorities Cited
- Parisi v. Broward Cnty., 769 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2000)
- Johnson v. Bednar, 573 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 1991)