District of Columbia v. Wesby, No. 15–1485 (2018).
The totality of the circumstances (the condition of the home, condition of partygoers, activities at the party, etc.) may give police officers probable cause to arrest people for unlawful entry at “pop-up” parties where owner has not given permission to use the home.
Artis v. District of Columbia, Case No. 16–460 (2018).
The meaning of “tolled” within 28 U. S. C. section 1367(d) (the period oflimitations for refiling in state court a pendent state claim that is dismissed when the federal claim is dismissed is “tolled” for 30 days after dismissal) is that the time period stopped running due to the federal suit but recommences running from the point stopped upon dismissal of the federal suit with attached pendent state claims.
Banco de losTrabajadores v. Moreno, Case No. 3D17-730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018).
The connexity requirement of Florida’s long-arm statute section 48.193(1)(a) (a cause of action must arisefrom an enumerated act and thatenumerated act must occur in Florida)is not satisfied when the only tort relied upon to confer jurisdiction is civilconspiracy to commit a tort, and no element of the underlying tort is alleged tohave occurred in Florida.
Goldman v. Lustig, Case No. 4D16-1933 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
A party that has the right to use a dock attached to an adjoining party’s land is not entitled to an easement of necessity across the neighbor’s land to access the dock; the party seeking to use the dock must build a separate access dock or access the dock from the water.
DFG Group v. Heritage Manor of Memorial Park, Inc., Case No. 4D16-2972 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
A party that affirms a contract upon prevailing on a tort claim arising out of a contract is entitled to the profit plaintiff would have earned had the agreement been performed but not for the cost of preparing to perform.
Longo v. Associated Limousine Services, Inc., Case No. 4D17-516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018).
A plaintiff seeking Florida Statute section 56.29 proceedings supplementary against a third party based on alter ego need not describe the property of the third party sought to be executed (as required by the text of section 56.29(2)),but instead maysimply state the third party is the alter ego of the defendant.
Penton Business Media Holdings, LLC v. Orange County, Florida,Case No. 5D16-3935 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
The Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences is not a duty to mitigate, and states that a plaintiff is responsible only for damages it could have avoided using “ordinary and reasonable care.”