ier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007); Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell, M. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). Additionally, the Third District Court of Appeal in Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), concluded that the litigation privilege applies to a cause of action for malicious prosecuti

a fraud count and I'm only allowing it because the Third District says that I must. Id. (Emphasis in original). 22. In reversing the trial court, the Third District Court of Appeal noted that "the trial court's error was in reading Perlman expansively to allow a punitive damages claim in each instance when fraud is alleged, in

nly such material relevant to the offender's deviant behavior. In the decision below, Kasischke v. State, 946 So. 2d 1155, 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), the Third District Court of Appeal held that offenders cannot possess any such material. Its decision expressly and directly conflicts with the Second District Court of Appeal's deci

Fowler White. D. Legal Authorities The release does not cover unaccrued claims either by the plain language of the release or by law. In Florida, the Third District Court of Appeal found a "general release will ordinarily be regarded as embracing all claims or demands which had matured at the time of its execution but will not

38 FLA. L. WEEKLY D1540 (July 17, 2013), is instructive, as it is directly on point with the facts and law presented in the case at hand. In Wolfe, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings in an abuse of process and malicious prosecution action, finding t

ed." Urquiza v. Kendall Healthcare Group, Ltd., 994 So. 2d 476, 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (emphasis added). For example in Klein v. Royale Group, Ltd. the Third District Court of Appeal held that a stay became unreasonable fourteen months after the lawsuit was filed. 524 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). See also Eller Media Co. v. S

pier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 2007); Levin, Middlebrooks, Moves & Mitchell,.. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1994). Additionally, the Third District Court of Appeal in Wolfe v. Foreman, 128 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), concluded that the litigation privilege applies to a cause of action for malicious prosecuti

., Read v. Taylor , 832 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Epstein served another motion and letter pursuant to §57.105 on August 29, 2013, based upon the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Wolfe v. Foreman, 38 FLA. L. WEEKLY D1540 (July 17, 2013), which analyzed all of the law germane to the litigation privilege upon whic

g, P.A., 125 So. 3d 309 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) in matters involving the litigation privilege. In the instant case, the trial court was legally bound by the Third District Court of Appeal's decision in Wolfe, as the Florida Supreme Court stated unequivocally that a "trial court may not overrule or recede from the controlling decision