Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Abrilgreen2 sentences2023Gracey, 837 So. 2d at 357 (recognizing an exception for negligent breach of a duty of confidentiality as to the release of sensitive personal information); Abril, 969 So. 2d at 207-08 (recognizing an exception for “when a laboratory or other health care provider is negligent in failing to keep confidential the results of an HIV test”); Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So. 2d 415, 422-23 (Fla. 1992) (recognizing an exception for wrongful birth resulting from negligent medical advice); Tanner, 696 So. 2d at 708 (recognizing an exception for negligent medical care resulting in a child being stillborn); Champio 2023See Gracey, 837 So. 2d at 356-57 (holding that the impact rule should not bar recovery of emotional distress damages in an action for negligent breach of a duty of confidentiality as to the release of sensitive personal information because “[t]he emotional distress that [plaintiffs] allege they have suffered is at least equal to that typically suffered by the victim of a defamation or an invasion of privacy”); Abril, 969 So. 2d at 207-08 (“Because the only reasonable damages arising from a breach of [the statute governing confidentiality of HIV test results] are emotional distress, and because | 3 | 4 |
Gracey v. Eakergreen2 sentences2023Gracey, 837 So. 2d at 357 (recognizing an exception for negligent breach of a duty of confidentiality as to the release of sensitive personal information); Abril, 969 So. 2d at 207-08 (recognizing an exception for “when a laboratory or other health care provider is negligent in failing to keep confidential the results of an HIV test”); Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So. 2d 415, 422-23 (Fla. 1992) (recognizing an exception for wrongful birth resulting from negligent medical advice); Tanner, 696 So. 2d at 708 (recognizing an exception for negligent medical care resulting in a child being stillborn); Champio 2023See Gracey, 837 So. 2d at 356-57 (holding that the impact rule should not bar recovery of emotional distress damages in an action for negligent breach of a duty of confidentiality as to the release of sensitive personal information because “[t]he emotional distress that [plaintiffs] allege they have suffered is at least equal to that typically suffered by the victim of a defamation or an invasion of privacy”); Abril, 969 So. 2d at 207-08 (“Because the only reasonable damages arising from a breach of [the statute governing confidentiality of HIV test results] are emotional distress, and because | 2 | 5 |
Tanner v. Hartoggreen2 sentences2023Gracey, 837 So. 2d at 357 (recognizing an exception for negligent breach of a duty of confidentiality as to the release of sensitive personal information); Abril, 969 So. 2d at 207-08 (recognizing an exception for “when a laboratory or other health care provider is negligent in failing to keep confidential the results of an HIV test”); Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So. 2d 415, 422-23 (Fla. 1992) (recognizing an exception for wrongful birth resulting from negligent medical advice); Tanner, 696 So. 2d at 708 (recognizing an exception for negligent medical care resulting in a child being stillborn); Champio 2016See Fla. Dep’t of Corr. v. Abril, 969 So. 2d 201, 204 (Fla. 2007) (holding the impact rule was inapplicable in an action for negligent failure of a testing laboratory to ensure confidentiality and privacy of HIV test results); see also Holt, 850 So. 2d at 481 (holding the impact rule was inapplicable to a legal malpractice case against the Office of Public Defender for failure to obtain immediate release of imprisoned client); Gracey, 837 So. 2d at 352-53 (holding the impact rule was inapplicable in a negligence action against a psychotherapist, alleging breach of fiduciary and statutory duty | 2 | 3 |
Rowell v. Holtgreen2 sentences2023Gracey, 837 So. 2d at 357 (recognizing an exception for negligent breach of a duty of confidentiality as to the release of sensitive personal information); Abril, 969 So. 2d at 207-08 (recognizing an exception for “when a laboratory or other health care provider is negligent in failing to keep confidential the results of an HIV test”); Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So. 2d 415, 422-23 (Fla. 1992) (recognizing an exception for wrongful birth resulting from negligent medical advice); Tanner, 696 So. 2d at 708 (recognizing an exception for negligent medical care resulting in a child being stillborn); Champio 2016See Fla. Dep’t of Corr. v. Abril, 969 So. 2d 201, 204 (Fla. 2007) (holding the impact rule was inapplicable in an action for negligent failure of a testing laboratory to ensure confidentiality and privacy of HIV test results); see also Holt, 850 So. 2d at 481 (holding the impact rule was inapplicable to a legal malpractice case against the Office of Public Defender for failure to obtain immediate release of imprisoned client); Gracey, 837 So. 2d at 352-53 (holding the impact rule was inapplicable in a negligence action against a psychotherapist, alleging breach of fiduciary and statutory duty | 2 | 3 |
Kush v. Lloydgreen2 sentences2023Gracey, 837 So. 2d at 357 (recognizing an exception for negligent breach of a duty of confidentiality as to the release of sensitive personal information); Abril, 969 So. 2d at 207-08 (recognizing an exception for “when a laboratory or other health care provider is negligent in failing to keep confidential the results of an HIV test”); Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So. 2d 415, 422-23 (Fla. 1992) (recognizing an exception for wrongful birth resulting from negligent medical advice); Tanner, 696 So. 2d at 708 (recognizing an exception for negligent medical care resulting in a child being stillborn); Champio 2018See Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Abril, 969 So.2d 201 (Fla. 2007); Rowell v. Holt, 850 So.2d 474 (Fla. 2003); Gracey v. Eaker, 837 So.2d 348 (Fla. 2002); Hagen v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 804 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2001); Tanner v. Hartog, 696 So.2d 705 (Fla. 1997), Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1992); and Brady v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., 948 So.2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). 4. | 1 | 2 |
Hagan v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.green2 sentences2016See Fla. Dep’t of Corr. v. Abril, 969 So.2d 201, 204 (Fla.2007) (holding the impact rule was inapplicable in an action for negligent failure of a testing laboratory to ensure confidentiality and privacy of HIV test results); see also Holt, 850 So.2d at 481 (holding the impact rule was inapplicable to a legal malpractice case against the Office of Public Defender for failure to obtain immediate release of imprisoned client); Gracey, 837 So.2d at 352-53 (holding the impact rule was inapplicable in a negligence action against a psychotherapist, alleging breach of fiduciary and statutory duty of c 2016See Fla. Dep’t of Corr. v. Abril, 969 So. 2d 201, 204 (Fla. 2007) (holding the impact rule was inapplicable in an action for negligent failure of a testing laboratory to ensure confidentiality and privacy of HIV test results); see also Holt, 850 So. 2d at 481 (holding the impact rule was inapplicable to a legal malpractice case against the Office of Public Defender for failure to obtain immediate release of imprisoned client); Gracey, 837 So. 2d at 352-53 (holding the impact rule was inapplicable in a negligence action against a psychotherapist, alleging breach of fiduciary and statutory duty | 1 | 2 |
Harris v. Californiagreen2 sentences2001In Gaines v. State, 998 P.2d 166 (Nev.2000), cert. denied, Gaines v. Nevada, 531 U.S. 856 , 121 S.Ct. 138 , 148 L.Ed.2d 90 *1008 (2000), the court specifically rejected the argument that it should apply a "strict scrutiny" test because the Nevada DNA statute implicated the defendant's fundamental right to privacy, finding that "a convicted person has no fundamental right to be free from DNA genetic marker testing." While there are no cases construing the Florida Constitution's right to privacy provision in this context, the court in Fosman v. State, 664 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rejected 2001In Gaines v. State, 998 P.2d 166 (Nev.2000), cert. denied, Gaines v. Nevada, 531 U.S. 856 , 121 S.Ct. 138 , 148 L.Ed.2d 90 (2000), the court specifically rejected the argument that it should apply a “strict scrutiny” test because the Nevada DNA statute implicated the defendant’s fundamental right to privacy, finding that “a convicted person has no fundamental right to be free from DNA genetic marker testing.” While there are no cases construing the Florida Constitution’s right to privacy provision in this context, the court in Fosman v. State, 664 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rejected an in | 1 | 2 |
Champion v. Graygreen1 sentence2023Gracey, 837 So. 2d at 357 (recognizing an exception for negligent breach of a duty of confidentiality as to the release of sensitive personal information); Abril, 969 So. 2d at 207-08 (recognizing an exception for “when a laboratory or other health care provider is negligent in failing to keep confidential the results of an HIV test”); Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So. 2d 415, 422-23 (Fla. 1992) (recognizing an exception for wrongful birth resulting from negligent medical advice); Tanner, 696 So. 2d at 708 (recognizing an exception for negligent medical care resulting in a child being stillborn); Champio | 1 | 1 |
Hernandez v. Amisub, Inc.green1 sentence2002For the latter proposition, John Doe relies primarily upon Hernandez v. Amisub, Inc., 714 So.2d 539, 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), which states that the "concealment" exception to the statute of repose in section 95.11(4)(b) does not include a "scienter element" and that a careless misrepresentation may be sufficient to extend the period of repose. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gaines v. State
green
2 sentences2001In Gaines v. State, 998 P.2d 166 (Nev.2000), cert. denied, Gaines v. Nevada, 531 U.S. 856 , 121 S.Ct. 138 , 148 L.Ed.2d 90 *1008 (2000), the court specifically rejected the argument that it should apply a "strict scrutiny" test because the Nevada DNA statute implicated the defendant's fundamental right to privacy, finding that "a convicted person has no fundamental right to be free from DNA genetic marker testing." While there are no cases construing the Florida Constitution's right to privacy provision in this context, the court in Fosman v. State, 664 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rejected 2001In Gaines v. State, 998 P.2d 166 (Nev.2000), cert. denied, Gaines v. Nevada, 531 U.S. 856 , 121 S.Ct. 138 , 148 L.Ed.2d 90 (2000), the court specifically rejected the argument that it should apply a “strict scrutiny” test because the Nevada DNA statute implicated the defendant’s fundamental right to privacy, finding that “a convicted person has no fundamental right to be free from DNA genetic marker testing.” While there are no cases construing the Florida Constitution’s right to privacy provision in this context, the court in Fosman v. State, 664 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rejected an in | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Winfield v. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering
green
2 sentences2001Applying Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Dept. of Business Regulation, 477 So.2d 544 (Fla.1985), the court found that the inmate, who had been charged with armed sexual battery, had no reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to the HIV blood test, but that even if he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, "society's interest in preventing members of the public from being exposed to HIV would be a sufficient compelling state interest to justify the infringement of that right." We find that a "convicted" person, as defined in section 943.325, has no reasonable expectation of 2001Applying Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Dept. of Business Regulation, 477 So.2d 544 (Fla.1985), the court found that the inmate, who had been charged with armed sexual battery, had no reasonable expectation of privacy in regard to the HIV blood test, but that even if he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, “society’s interest in preventing members of the public from being exposed to HIV would be a sufficient compelling state interest to justify the infringement of that right.” We find that a “convicted” person, as defined in section 943.325, has no reasonable expectation of | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Gomez v. United States
green
2 sentences2001In Gaines v. State, 998 P.2d 166 (Nev.2000), cert. denied, Gaines v. Nevada, 531 U.S. 856 , 121 S.Ct. 138 , 148 L.Ed.2d 90 *1008 (2000), the court specifically rejected the argument that it should apply a "strict scrutiny" test because the Nevada DNA statute implicated the defendant's fundamental right to privacy, finding that "a convicted person has no fundamental right to be free from DNA genetic marker testing." While there are no cases construing the Florida Constitution's right to privacy provision in this context, the court in Fosman v. State, 664 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rejected 2001In Gaines v. State, 998 P.2d 166 (Nev.2000), cert. denied, Gaines v. Nevada, 531 U.S. 856 , 121 S.Ct. 138 , 148 L.Ed.2d 90 (2000), the court specifically rejected the argument that it should apply a “strict scrutiny” test because the Nevada DNA statute implicated the defendant’s fundamental right to privacy, finding that “a convicted person has no fundamental right to be free from DNA genetic marker testing.” While there are no cases construing the Florida Constitution’s right to privacy provision in this context, the court in Fosman v. State, 664 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rejected an in | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Davis v. United States
green
2 sentences2001In Gaines v. State, 998 P.2d 166 (Nev.2000), cert. denied, Gaines v. Nevada, 531 U.S. 856 , 121 S.Ct. 138 , 148 L.Ed.2d 90 *1008 (2000), the court specifically rejected the argument that it should apply a "strict scrutiny" test because the Nevada DNA statute implicated the defendant's fundamental right to privacy, finding that "a convicted person has no fundamental right to be free from DNA genetic marker testing." While there are no cases construing the Florida Constitution's right to privacy provision in this context, the court in Fosman v. State, 664 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rejected 2001In Gaines v. State, 998 P.2d 166 (Nev.2000), cert. denied, Gaines v. Nevada, 531 U.S. 856 , 121 S.Ct. 138 , 148 L.Ed.2d 90 (2000), the court specifically rejected the argument that it should apply a “strict scrutiny” test because the Nevada DNA statute implicated the defendant’s fundamental right to privacy, finding that “a convicted person has no fundamental right to be free from DNA genetic marker testing.” While there are no cases construing the Florida Constitution’s right to privacy provision in this context, the court in Fosman v. State, 664 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rejected an in | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Fosman v. State
green
2 sentences2001In Gaines v. State, 998 P.2d 166 (Nev.2000), cert. denied, Gaines v. Nevada, 531 U.S. 856 , 121 S.Ct. 138 , 148 L.Ed.2d 90 *1008 (2000), the court specifically rejected the argument that it should apply a "strict scrutiny" test because the Nevada DNA statute implicated the defendant's fundamental right to privacy, finding that "a convicted person has no fundamental right to be free from DNA genetic marker testing." While there are no cases construing the Florida Constitution's right to privacy provision in this context, the court in Fosman v. State, 664 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rejected 2001In Gaines v. State, 998 P.2d 166 (Nev.2000), cert. denied, Gaines v. Nevada, 531 U.S. 856 , 121 S.Ct. 138 , 148 L.Ed.2d 90 (2000), the court specifically rejected the argument that it should apply a “strict scrutiny” test because the Nevada DNA statute implicated the defendant’s fundamental right to privacy, finding that “a convicted person has no fundamental right to be free from DNA genetic marker testing.” While there are no cases construing the Florida Constitution’s right to privacy provision in this context, the court in Fosman v. State, 664 So.2d 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), rejected an in | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Brady v. SCI FUNERAL SERVICES OF FLORIDA
green
2 sentences2018See Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Abril, 969 So.2d 201 (Fla. 2007); Rowell v. Holt, 850 So.2d 474 (Fla. 2003); Gracey v. Eaker, 837 So.2d 348 (Fla. 2002); Hagen v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 804 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2001); Tanner v. Hartog, 696 So.2d 705 (Fla. 1997), Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1992); and Brady v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., 948 So.2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). 4. 2018See Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Abril, 969 So.2d 201 (Fla. 2007); Rowell v. Holt, 850 So.2d 474 (Fla. 2003); Gracey v. Eaker, 837 So.2d 348 (Fla. 2002); Hagen v. Coca Cola Bottling Co., 804 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 2001); Tanner v. Hartog, 696 So.2d 705 (Fla. 1997), Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1992); and Brady v. SCI Funeral Services of Florida, Inc., 948 So.2d 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). 4. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Re Amendments to Fla. Rules
green
1 sentence2014Admin., 608 So.2d 472 (Fla.1992). .These categories include Chapter 39 records relating to dependency matters, termination of parental rights, guardians ad litem, child abuse, adoption records, HIV test results, test results and identity within test results of sexu ally transmitted diseases when provided by the Florida Department of Health, and identifying information in clinical records of detained criminal defendants found incompetent to proceed or acquitted by reason of insanity. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Abril v. Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 207-08 . [2] *204 Upon appeal of a trial court order dismissing the Abrils' action, the Second District, in a unanimous decision explained in an opinion by Judge Canady, reversed the trial court, analogizing the case to that of Gracey v. Eaker, 837 So.2d 348 (Fla.2002), in which this Court recently concluded that a civil action for damages arose from the breach by a psychotherapist of a statutory duty of confidentiality and privacy. 2007Id. at 207-08 . [2] *204 Upon appeal of a trial court order dismissing the Abrils' action, the Second District, in a unanimous decision explained in an opinion by Judge Canady, reversed the trial court, analogizing the case to that of Gracey v. Eaker, 837 So.2d 348 (Fla.2002), in which this Court recently concluded that a civil action for damages arose from the breach by a psychotherapist of a statutory duty of confidentiality and privacy. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
RJ v. Humana of Florida, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007I dissent from the majority's decision because I cannot see how this negligence case, involving results from an HIV test, materially differs from R.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So.2d 360 (Fla.1995), which involved negligence in respect to an HIV test. 2007I dissent from the majority's decision because I cannot see how this negligence case, involving results from an HIV test, materially differs from R.J. v. Humana of Florida, Inc., 652 So.2d 360 (Fla.1995), which involved negligence in respect to an HIV test. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Nardone v. Reynolds
red
1 sentence2002John Doe maintains that in light of section 381.004(3) the constructive notice rule announced in Nardone, 333 So.2d 25 , should not be applied to hold that he had constructive knowledge of the positive test results, and that any negligent failure to notify him of the positive HIV test constitutes a "concealment" that extends the statute of limitations to seven years under the statute of repose. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Johnetta J. v. Municipal Court
green
2 sentences1995In Johnetta v. Municipal Court, 218 Cal. App.3d 1255 , 267 Cal. Rptr. 666 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1990), a statute required an HIV test for any persons charged with biting or transferring blood or other bodily fluids through the skin of a police officer. 1995In Johnetta v. Municipal Court, 218 Cal. App.3d 1255 , 267 Cal. Rptr. 666 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1990), a statute required an HIV test for any persons charged with biting or transferring blood or other bodily fluids through the skin of a police officer. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Syring v. Tucker
green
2 sentences1995Although a statute specifically requiring HIV testing was not at issue the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Syring v. Tucker, 174 Wis.2d 787 , 498 N.W.2d 370 (1993), that the defendant who bit plaintiff could be compelled to submit to an HIV test under the statute authorizing compulsory physical examinations in civil actions. 1995Although a statute specifically requiring HIV testing was not at issue the Wisconsin Supreme Court held in Syring v. Tucker, 174 Wis.2d 787 , 498 N.W.2d 370 (1993), that the defendant who bit plaintiff could be compelled to submit to an HIV test under the statute authorizing compulsory physical examinations in civil actions. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.