Epstein Secrets

trial after the jury rendered verdict, it would have been within the district court's discretion to sua sponte suggest remittitur."); Cook v. its Ross EFTA00727610 Addle, et al. v. Kjaer, et al. Civil No. 2004-135 Judgment Page 6 Island Sand & Gravel Co., 626 F.2d 746, 747 (9th Cir. 1980) (a

Bundgaard, John Knud Furst, Kim FUrst, and Nina Furst. Maria T. Hodge, Esq. St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For defendant Kevin F. D'Amour. JUDGMENT GOMEZ, C.J. This matter is before the Court for entry of judgment following a trial by jury and for a determination of an appropriate award, if any, of prejudgm

ichael E. Allen, Tallahassee. for appellants. Hunton & Williams LLP, and Marty Steinberg and Jeffrey W. Gutchess; Ross & Girten, and Lauri Waldman Ross, Miami, for appellees. Before SHEPHERD, C.I., and CORTISIAS and ROTHENBERG, JJ. Opinion ROTHENBERG, J. •1 The issue in this appeal is whether

litigation privilege barred the abuse of process claim, and (21 litigation privilege bared the malicious prosecution claim. Affirmed. Shepherd, C.J., filed specially concurring opinion. West Headnotes (4) Itl tit Process ti-Nature and Elements in General The elements of a cause of action for

[email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michael Ross Tein Lewis Tein 3059 Grand Avenue Suite 340 E

ealth Care Plan, Inc., 843 So. 2d 842, 852 (Fla. 2003)). See also, e.g., Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre, 636 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. Fla. 1985) (King, C.J.) (holding that violation of Florida's criminal extortion statute does not give rise to a civil cause of action for damages). 2 Chapter 800, Florida

ng domestic drug interdiction checkpoints "does not affect the validity of border searches or searches at places like airports"): United States v. Ross. 456 U.S. 798. 823. 102 &Ct. 2157, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982) (explaining that while the Fourth Amendment gives protection to containers in domestic ve

g the privacy of thoughts and ideas —what we might call freedom of conscience—from invasion by the government." Seljan, 547 F.3d at 1014 (Kozinski, C.J., dissenting); see also New York v. Video, Inc., 475 U.S. 868, 873, 106 S.Ct. 1610, 89 L.Ed.2d 871 (1986). These records are expected to be kept p

t have been argued that the constitutional rights that normally would attend preconviction proceedings do not ar mpany the appellate process. See Ross Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 94 S.Ct. Page 16 2437, 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974). Howevi the recent Supreme Court case of Evius Lum, 469 U.S. 387, 105 S.Ct.

ancola, 4 F.2d 8 Pofin, Nos. 85-5009, 85-5010, slip op. at (11th Cir.1985 ; see also United States (4th Cir. March 4, 1985) (opinion of Mumaghan, C.J., as a single circuit judge). In this case the majority, adopting the reas- oning of both the nuird and Eleventh Cir- cuits, rewrites the statutory p