PBCBA BAR BULLETINS pbcba_bulletin_June 2019 - Page 18

New Attorney Swearing In Ceremony New attorneys being sworn in at the 4th District Court of Appeals Courthouse Sia Baker-Barnes, Riona Maharaj & Greg Huber On May 6, fifteen new attorneys were sworn in at the 4th District Court of Appeals Courthouse by Chief Judge Gerber. Immediate Past President, Sia Baker-Barnes spoke on behalf of the Florida Board of Governors. President Gregory Huber, along with other Bar Associations Presidents attended this ceremony to encourage new attorneys to join their local bars and to remind them of the importance of civility and professionalism. The classic example of the application of this exception occurs in the context of an acquittal in a criminal proceeding, which is not sufficient to protect the defendant from liability in a subsequent civil action by the government related to the same misconduct. [citations omitted].” See Cook v. State , 921 So. 2d 631(Fla. 2nd DCA 2005). See also United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Selz, 637 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) wherein the court held: “Pursuant to the foregoing analysis, it was improper for the trial court to collaterally estop appellant's declaratory action based upon Elitzky on this point of appellant's duty to defend because the legal standard in Pennsylvania is different from that in Florida. In Florida, it would be easier for the exclusion clause to apply because Florida does not require that the intended injury be of the "same general type" as the resulting injury. Appellant should have been given the opportunity to argue under the correct legal standard.”. Compare C. L. R. Co. v. Industrial Contracting Co. , 260 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) (for there to be identity of the cause of action, the degree of proof required in the second suit must be at least as great as that required to support recovery in the first suit. If the degree of proof required in the first suit is greater than that required in the second, the cause of action cannot be held to be the same). CONCLUSION: Assuming you objected to the appointment of the PR and lose, you may still be able to raise the same issues PALMBEACHBAR.ORG 18 in a subsequent lawsuit. Ask: (1) Were the issues presented in both proceedings identical? (2) Were the issues raised in the first lawsuit a critical and necessary part of that determination? (3) Was there a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues? (4) Are the parties in the two proceedings identical? (5) Were the issues actually litigated in the first lawsuit? (6) Is the first lawsuit in equity and the second lawsuit for damages? (7) Did the plaintiff have a significantly heavier burden of persuasion with respect to the issues raised in the initial action than in the subsequent action?