Hall v. Florida (PDF, 135KB) WASHINGTON — The American Psychological Association applauded the U.S. Supreme Court today for vacating the death sentence for a mentally disabled Florida man. 5. The trial court devoted two weeks of trial time to the claims, carefully considered evidentiary rulings relating to the expert psychiatric witnesses, viewed a video of the decedent's execution of the self-proving will, and committed no error in denying the petition. BILLY JACK'S, INC., Respondent.

Petitioner seeks review of the decision of the Second District Court of Appeal, Spillers v. Hall, 428 So.

As Eugene Hall watched a pool game in Billy Jack's Lounge on November 9, 1978, he was assaulted by another lounge patron. Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. The presentation of the record by the appellants in their initial brief in the present case is not a summary of the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's findings.

Turner v. Lorber, 360 So.2d 101, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). The email address cannot be subscribed. This is an appeal from adversary proceedings in the probate court—an undue influence claim and petition to revoke the probate of a will and trust. Samuel H. HALL, Jr., and Yassin S. Hall, Appellants, v. Elsa Emily HALL, etc., Appellee. We note that the case against Billy Jack's, Inc. was tried on a theory of liability more narrow than that which we enunciated in Babrab and Stevens. Kathleen V. McCarthy, Hialeah, for respondent. 2d 356 (Fla. 1983). degree from Yale University, a residency at Harvard, and board certification in geriatric psychiatry, serving as medical director of Miami Jewish Health Systems and as an associate professor at the University of Miami Medical School. Forseeability may be established by proving that a proprietor had actual or constructive knowledge of a particular assailant's inclination toward violence or by proving that the proprietor had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition on his premises that was likely to cause harm to a patron. The presentation of the record by the appellants in their initial brief in the present case is not a summary of the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's findings. Eleventh Circuit Aug. 5 Watch the 11th Circuit Town Hall Seventeenth Circuit Aug. 10 Watch the 17th Circuit Town Hall Thirteenth Circuit Aug. 11 Watch the 13th Circuit Town Hall Nineteenth Circuit Aug. 13 Watch the 19th Circuit Town Hall Eighth Circuit Aug. 17 Watch the 8th Circuit Town Hall … When it was over Hall rose to his feet and turned to face Wayne Spillers, a lounge patron, and George McGuire, the lounge manager. Stevens v. Jefferson, 436 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); we have since quashed Babrab, 438 So. But Hall v. Florida is a ruling about science and medicine as much as it is about law and logic, and it is welcome news at a time when there is great partisan conflict between law … Spillers hit Hall over the head with a pool cue he had taken from the lounge in violation of posted rules. The court was to decide whether the cutoff was so rigid that it was unconstitutional. The district court affirmed as to Spillers but reversed as to Billy Jack's. We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. See Bryant v. State, 901 So.2d 810, 823 (Fla.2005). That is the issue the Court granted in Hall v.Florida (docket 12-10882), to be argued early in the new year. 2d 520 (Fla. 1980). The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case Riley v. California.

The district court, before Babrab had issued from this Court, overturned the plaintiff's verdict against the tavern in reliance on the Fourth District's decision in Babrab which we quashed. The question of foreseeability is for the trier of fact. The issue rested on … The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Hall v. Florida, docket number 12-10882, a case testing the limits of the court’s ban on executing the intellectually… The video was played in open court and admitted into evidence. Hall was a business visitor in Billy Jack's Lounge; the lounge owes business visitors a duty of reasonable care for their safety.

Ordinarily the appellate phase of this intra-family dispute—launched by the appellants against a logical and equitable program of lifetime gifts and transfers after death by a mother of four and grandmother of three—would be consigned to “a quiet interment in the form of a PCA.”1 We affirm, and write only to reiterate a fundamental tenet of appellate advocacy. Gonzalez, 87 So.3d 803, 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (Schwartz, S. J., specially concurring). The court on May 27, 2014, held that a bright-line IQ threshold requirement for determining whether someone has an intellectual disability (formerly known as "mental retardation") is unconstitutional in deciding whether they are eligible for the death penalty. BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur. close. The issue rested on how states defined intellectual disability when using IQ tests. The record, viewed in this required light, further establishes that the challenged documents were properly executed, that they were prepared at the request of the decedent, and that they were not actively procured by the appellee (a daughter) serving as personal representative under the will. Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, 386 So. Although some of the facts are disputed, the parties agree on all material points. The “light most favorable” is not a reference to a Florida sunrise.

Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. ___ (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a bright-line IQ threshold requirement for determining whether someone has an intellectual disability (formerly mental retardation) is unconstitutional in deciding whether they …

The Supreme Court moved on Monday to settle a long-lingering issue: the legal standard for judging whether a person is mentally disabled, and therefore eligible for the death penalty. 2d 268 (1982) on the grounds of direct and express interdistrict conflict.

All rights reserved. Babrab, Inc. v. Allen, 408 So. Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select. The court held that Billy Jack's was not shown to have breached its duty to Hall in that no evidence supported a finding that Billy Jack's knew or should have known that Spillers would attack Hall without provocation. APA filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, Hall v. 2d 4 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). The trial court also watched the video of the 2011 will-signing. We quash the decision of the district court and remand the case to that court for reconsideration. 2d 33 (Fla. 1983). Please try again. James P. Driscoll, Inc., v. Gould, 521 So.2d 301, 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (citing Turner ). We quash the decision of the district court and remand the case to that court for reconsideration. In relying on a rule it considered to be dispositive, the district court below did not reach other issues which may affect the appellate disposition of this case. In 2002 the Supreme Court ruled that executing those who are “mentally retarded” is “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment. The jury found in favor of Hall and against Billy Jack's on all issues and awarded Hall $240,000 against Spillers and Billy Jack's jointly. As Eugene Hall watched a pool game in Billy Jack's Lounge on November … This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. These indicia are not exhaustive. For example, the trial court found that the appellants were not credible, and this conclusion is supported by inconsistencies in their testimony. The court decided at that time to leave it to states to determine the criteria for meeting this standard. The appellee established that she was not a substantial beneficiary under the trust. The fight moved outside. Fernandez *762 v. Miami Jai Alai, Inc., 386 So. 5 days ago. The case concerns whether the use of the…, The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Montgomery v. Louisiana, docket number 14-280, on whether their 2012 Miller v.…, https://images.c-span.org/Files/f45/20140307203038002_hd.jpg, © 2020 National Cable Satellite Corporation. Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. Hall sought damages against Billy Jack's for the November 9 assault on a negligence theory. The plaintiff, David Riley, was convicted…, The Supreme Court heard oral argument in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

The undue influence claim regarding the late Mrs. Hall's testamentary capacity was rejected based on the testimony of persons present at the execution of the challenged documents and expert testimony following a review of medical records and videotape of the decedent.2 The appellee's expert regarding mental capacity was a board-certified physician with an M.D. *This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning. We therefore remand this case to the district court for reconsideration in light of this Court's decisions in Babrab and Stevens.

The appellants are obligated to provide a statement of facts and to interpret the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conclusions of the finder of fact. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in [Hall v. Florida], docket number 12-10882, a case testing the limits of the court's ban on executing the intellectually disabled. Expressed another way, “Where there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court's conclusions we must affirm.” James P. Driscoll, Inc., v. Gould, 521 So.2d 301, 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (citing Turner ). Javascript must be enabled in order to access C-SPAN videos. v. Hall testified that the blow was without provocation; Spillers testified that it was in self-defense. Hall also claims that Florida's capital sentencing scheme is unconstitutional under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). For these reasons, the trial court's “Order Denying Petition for Revocation of Probate of Will and Trust” is affirmed, as is the subsequent order denying rehearing. University of Miami v. Exposito ex rel.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. 2. of Florida Supreme Court opinions. The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Hall v. Florida, docket number 12-10882, a case testing the limits of the court’s ban on executing the intellectually disabled. A dangerous condition may be indicated if, according to past experience (i.e., reputation of the tavern), there is a likelihood of disorderly conduct by third persons in general which might endanger the safety of patrons or if security staffing is inadequate.

1. Subscribe to Justia's Free Summaries Florida uses an IQ cutoff of 70 for determining intellectual disability. A dozen years later, in Hall v. Florida,2 the Court has reiterated the constitutional holding of Atkins and has given the states guidance on its implementation.3 The Court held that Florida could not impose an arbitrary IQ score limitation on the right of capital defendants to seek relief under Atkins.4 The former Astronaut Hall of Fame, located just … *761 D. Russell Stahl, Tampa, for petitioner.