adequacy warning in Florida

2026Co., 622 So. 2d 1352, 1354 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (“There are occasions when the adequacy of a warning is a question of law for the judge to decide.

2012Co., 622 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (reversing summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant and remanding for the jury to determine the adequacy of the warnings even though the Second District determined that the Clearwater Police Department was not a learned intermediary).

2011See City of Tampa v. Addison, 979 So.2d 246, 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

2009The adequacy requirement of paragraph (a) is no exception, and the fulfillment of this requirement “is not to be presumed in the absence of specific proof to the contrary.” City of Tampa v. Addison, 979 So.2d 246, 253-54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

1986Cf. Osorio v. Metropolitan Dade County, 459 So.2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Department of Transportation v. Webb, 438 So.2d 780, 781 (Fla. 1983) (the failure to place warning signs at a railroad crossing known to be dangerous is an operational-level function). [2] In regard to DOT's argument that its actions were planning-level functions in that they complied with DOT's manual by placing warning signs in the work site area, we answer that governmental immunity cannot be invoked by simply showing that DOT formulated and adhered to a schedule of road maintenance at an accident site.

1985Cf. Osorio v. Metropolitan Dade County, 459 So.2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Department of Transportation v. Webb, 438 So.2d 780, 781 (Fla. 1983) (the failure to place warning signs at a railroad crossing known to be dangerous is an operational-level function).

2026These occasions, however, are limited to circumstances in which the warning is ‘accurate, clear, and unambiguous.’” (quoting Felix v. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc., 540 So. 2d 102, 105 (Fla. 1989))).

1993These occasions, however, are limited to circumstances in which the warning is "accurate, clear, and unambiguous." Felix v. Hoffman-LaRoche, Inc., 540 So.2d 102 (Fla. 1989); Adams v. G.D.

2018The present case is unique "in that the adequacy of the rule itself was challenged ... as opposed to the noncompliance with a rule." Id. at 954 n.4 (citing Albritton v. State , 561 So.2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) ; Donaldson v. State , 561 So.2d 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) ).

2000See, e.g., Albritton v. State, 561 So.2d 19, 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) ("The state failed to prove that at the time the blood was withdrawn in this case, the technologist was in fact licensed."); Donaldson v. State, 561 So.2d 648, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) ("For the state to totally omit evidence concerning half of the approved testing process cannot be substantial compliance."). [5] The defense expert ultimately concluded that in order to maintain the integrity of a sample, the anticoagulant and preservative should be used, and the sample should be kept as refrigerated as possible before testing.

2018The present case is unique "in that the adequacy of the rule itself was challenged ... as opposed to the noncompliance with a rule." Id. at 954 n.4 (citing Albritton v. State , 561 So.2d 19 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) ; Donaldson v. State , 561 So.2d 648 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) ).

2000See, e.g., Albritton v. State, 561 So.2d 19, 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) ("The state failed to prove that at the time the blood was withdrawn in this case, the technologist was in fact licensed."); Donaldson v. State, 561 So.2d 648, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) ("For the state to totally omit evidence concerning half of the approved testing process cannot be substantial compliance."). [5] The defense expert ultimately concluded that in order to maintain the integrity of a sample, the anticoagulant and preservative should be used, and the sample should be kept as refrigerated as possible before testing.

2004If a pesticide manufacturer places EPA-approved warnings on the label and packaging of its product, its duty to warn is satisfied, and the adequate warning issue ends.[ [4] ] 985 F.2d at 519 .

1994See Papas v. Upjohn Co., 985 F.2d 516, 519 (11th Cir.1993) ("Because claims challenging the adequacy of warnings on materials other than the label or package of a product necessarily imply that the labeling and packaging failed to warn the user, we conclude that these claims are also preempted by FIFRA.").

2019I.R.C. v. State, 968 So. 2d 583, 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (recognizing that an appellate court may “ordinarily reverse only on the basis of the specific arguments presented by the appellant”).

2018Co., 133 F.R.D. 54, 58 (S.D.

2017Ascertainability The additional requirement of ascertainability is met when the class is “readily identifiable, such that the court can determine who is in the class and, thus, bound by the ruling.” McBean v. City of N.Y., 260 F.R.D. 120, 132-33 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

2017Sept. 23, 2016) (quoting Denney v. Deutsche Bank AG, 443 F.3d 253, 268 (2d Cir. 2006)).

2017See Cruz v. State, 189 So. 3d 822, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that “the standard instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force is a correct statement of the law”); Wyche v. State, 170 So. 3d 898, 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“Jury Instruction 3.6(f) is an accurate statement of the law on the use of deadly force, and there is no conflict between any of the sections contained in Chapter 776 or any conflict within Jury Instruction 3.6(f).”).

2017See Cruz v. State, 189 So. 3d 822, 831 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that “the standard instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force is a correct statement of the law”); Wyche v. State, 170 So. 3d 898, 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“Jury Instruction 3.6(f) is an accurate statement of the law on the use of deadly force, and there is no conflict between any of the sections contained in Chapter 776 or any conflict within Jury Instruction 3.6(f).”).

2016Sosa, 73 So.3d at 114-15 (explaining that typicality is satisfied “when the claims of the class representative and class members are not antagonistic to one another” and “[t]he second prong [of the adequacy requirement] pertains to whether the class representative’s interests are antagonistic to the interests of the class members”).

2014Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 862 , 375, 122 S.Ct. 877 , 151 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002); Douglas v. Alabama, " 380 U.S. 415, 422 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965).

2014Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 862 , 375, 122 S.Ct. 877 , 151 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002); Douglas v. Alabama, " 380 U.S. 415, 422 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965).

2014Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 862 , 375, 122 S.Ct. 877 , 151 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002); Douglas v. Alabama, " 380 U.S. 415, 422 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965).

2014Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 862 , 375, 122 S.Ct. 877 , 151 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002); Douglas v. Alabama, " 380 U.S. 415, 422 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965).

2011See Ownby v. Citrus Cnty., 13 So.3d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Browning v. Angelfish Swim Sch., Inc., 1 So.3d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).