KRISTIAN J. HALL
v.
DYAN MYARA, ET AL.
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.
A defendant adjudicated in a prior criminal proceeding is collaterally estopped from pursuing or defending against a civil claim based on the same conduct that formed the basis of the criminal charges.
[1] A defendant adjudicated guilty pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere in a criminal prosecution is collaterally estopped from seeking affirmative relief in or defending ag…
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 intelligence“In order to work an estoppel, the position assumed in the former trial must have been successfully maintained. In proceedings terminating in a judgment, the positions must be clearly inconsistent, the parties must be the same and the same questions must be involved.”
Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1061, 1066 (Fla. 2001), cited for the elements of estoppel.
Kristian J. Hall appealed a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County. The case involved issues of estoppel arising from prior criminal proceedings.…
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 Judicial Estoppel cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 21, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D23-1247 Lower Tribunal No. 21-16685 ________________ Kristian J. Hall, Appellant, vs. Dyan Myara, et al., Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lourdes Simon, Judge. Sackrin & Tolchinsky, P.A., and Alan D. Sackrin (Hallandale Beach), for appellant. Edward F. Holodak, P.A., and Edward F. Holodak (Fort Lauderdale); Joseph P. Klapholz, P.A., and Joseph P. Klapholz (Plantation); Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and Scott A. Cole, and Carly M. Weiss, for appellees. Before EMAS, SCALES and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1061, 1066 (Fla. 2001) (“In order to work an estoppel, the position assumed in the former trial must have been successfully maintained. In proceedings terminating in a judgment, the positions must be clearly inconsistent, the parties must be the same and the same questions must be involved.” (quotation omitted)); Starr Tyme, Inc. v. Cohen, 659 So. 2d 1064, 1066 (Fla. 1995) (“[A] defendant who is adjudicated guilty pursuant to a plea of nolo contendere in a criminal prosecution is collaterally estopped from seeking affirmative relief in or defending against a chapter 772 civil claim that is based on the same conduct that resulted in the prior criminal charges.”); § 772.14, Fla. Stat. (“A final judgment or decree rendered in favor of the state in any criminal proceeding concerning the conduct of the defendant which forms the basis for a civil cause of action under this chapter, or in any criminal proceeding under chapter 895, shall estop the defendant in any action brought pursuant to this chapter as to all matters as to which such judgment or decree would be an estoppel as if the plaintiff had been a party in the criminal action.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 2001)
- Starr Tyme, Inc. v. Cohen, 659 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 1995)