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?