DORAL HEALTH CENTER, P.A., A/A/O NANCY SANCHEZ
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
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 civil plaintiff seeking affirmative relief may not invoke the Fifth Amendment to refuse discovery compliance, as doing so permits an adverse inference supporting summary judgment.
[1] A civil litigant seeking affirmative relief may not invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid discovery requests while simultaneously pursuing their claim.
[2] An adverse inference may be drawn against a party in a civil action who invokes the privilege against self-incrimination.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“A civil litigant's fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination may be used as a shield but not a sword.”
Rollins Burdick Hunter of N.Y., Inc. v. Euroclassics Ltd., Inc.
Doral Health Center pursued claims against State Farm for automobile insurance coverage. The plaintiff invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against s…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Vasquez v. State, 777 So. 2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“[T]he trial court may draw an adverse inference against a party in a civil action who invokes his privilege against self-incrimination.” (citing Baxter
v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (1976))); Rollins Burdick Hunter of N.Y., Inc. v. Euroclassics Ltd., Inc., 502 So. 2d 959, 962 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“A civil litigant’s fifth amendment right to avoid self-incrimination may be used as a shield but not a sword. This means that a plaintiff seeking affirmative relief in a civil action may not invoke the fifth amendment and refuse to comply with the defendant’s discovery requests, thereby thwarting the defendant’s defenses.” (citing City of St. Petersburg v. Houghton, 362 So. 2d 681, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978))); see also Campbell v. Riggs, 310 So. 3d 68, 70 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“[O]nce there is a motion for summary judgment that is supported by affidavit or other factual showing, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show by appropriate means that genuine and material issues do remain to be tried.” (quoting Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40, 42 (Fla. 1966))); Raven v. Roosevelt REO US LLC, 278 So. 3d 245, 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“Summary judgment is proper . . . where the moving party shows conclusively that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (citation omitted)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. The United States, 614 F.2d 263 (Ct. Cl. 1980)…; Clevite Corp. v. United States, 386 F. 2d 841, 181 Ct.Cl. 652, 658 (1967); Trinity Construction Co. v. United States, 424 F. 2d 302 (5 Cir. 1970); Guardian Investment Corp. v. Phinney, 253 F. 2d 326 (5 Cir. 1958); Turtle Wax, Inc. v. Commissioner, 43 T.C. 460, 466-67 (1965); and Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 557, 572 (1962).…
-
Putoma Corp. v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 601 F.2d 734 (5th Cir. 1979)…380, 385, n. 5, 81 S.Ct. 1326, 6 L.Ed.2d 356 (1961); Clevite Corp. v. United States, 386 F. 2d 841, 843, 181 Ct.Cl. 652, 658 (1967); Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co. v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 557, 572 (1962); Turtle Wax, Inc. v. Commissioner, 43 T.C. 460, 466-67 (1965); Union Pacific R. R. Co. v. United States, 524 F. 2d 1343, 208 Ct.Cl. 1 (1975); and Koehring Co. v. United States, 421 F. 2d 715, 190 Ct.Cl. 898, 905 (1970). In fact, the test is now included in the Treasury Regulations as follows: “…
-
Clevite Corp. v. The United States, 386 F.2d 841 (Ct. Cl. 1967)…period, a taxpayer cannot accrue expenses for vacation pay before the taxable year in which the payments are made. Until the vacation period begins, the “all events” test, 26 C.F.R. § 1.461-1 (a) (2) (1961), has not been satisfied. Turtle Wax, Inc., 43 T.C. 460 (1965); Denver & Rio Grande W. R. [*844] R., 38 T.C. 557 (3962); Texaco-Cities Serv. Pipe Line Co. v. United States, supra. Plaintiff here has argued that, in its own words, * * * The crucial fact which distinguishes the present case from such cas…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1976)
- Sterling Mirror Co., LLC v. THE Jordon Glass Corp. (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
- City OF ST. Petersburg v. Houghton, 362 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Vasquez v. State, 777 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Rollins Burdick Hunter OF NEW York, Inc. v. Euroclassics Ltd., Inc., 502 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Raven v. Roosevelt Reo US LLC, 278 So. 3d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)