Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

DeLisle v. Crane Co.

Supreme Court of Florida

October 15, 2018, Decided

No. SC16-2182

Case Summary

Overview

HOLDINGS: [1]-Section 90.702, Fla. Stat., as amended in 2013, was not substantive as it did not create, define, or regulate a right.; [2]-Frye relied on the scientific community to determine reliability whereas Daubert relied on the scientific savvy of trial judges to determine the significance of the methodology used, and Frye, not Daubert, was the appropriate test in Florida courts; [3]-The expert testimony was properly admitted and should not have been excluded by the Fourth District as medical causation testimony was not new or novel and was not subject to Frye analysis.

Outcome

Judgment reversed and remanded.

LexisNexis® Headnotes

 

 

Governments > Courts > Rule Application & Interpretation

HN1  Rule Application & Interpretation

The Florida Legislature enacted the first codified rules of evidence in 1976. In 1979, the Florida Supreme Court adopted the Florida Evidence Code, to the extent that the code was procedural. Rules of evidence may in some instances be substantive law and, therefore, the sole responsibility of the legislature. In other instances, evidentiary rules may be procedural and the responsibility of the supreme court. The supreme court therefore chose to adopt the rules, to avoid multiple appeals and confusion in the operation of the courts caused by assertions that portions of the evidence code are procedural and, therefore, unconstitutional because they had not been adopted by the supreme court under its rule-making authority. Since then, the supreme court has traditionally continued to adopt the code, to the extent it is procedural, to avoid the issue of whether the Evidence Code is substantive in nature and therefore within the province of the Legislature or procedural in nature and therefore within the province of the supreme court.

 

Criminal Law & Procedure > Trials > Defendant's Rights > Right to Confrontation

Governments > Courts > Rule Application & Interpretation

HN2  Right to Confrontation

Until 2000, the working arrangement between the Legislature and the Florida Supreme Court remained intact. However, the Florida Supreme Court for the first time declined to adopt, to the extent they were procedural, amendments to § 90.803, Fla. Stat. (1997). The supreme court determined that the revised statute was unconstitutional because it infringed on a defendant's right to confront witnesses.

 

Governments > Courts > Rule Application & Interpretation

HN3  Rule Application & Interpretation

Generally, the Legislature has the power to enact substantive law while the Florida Supreme Court has the power to enact procedural law. Substantive law has been described as that which defines, creates, or regulates rights—those existing for their own sake and constituting the normal legal order of society, i.e., the rights of life, liberty, property, and reputation. Procedural law, on the other hand, is the form, manner, or means by which substantive law is implemented. Stated differently, procedural law includes all rules governing the parties, their counsel and the Court throughout the progress of the case from the time of its initiation until final judgment and its execution. It is the method of conducting litigation involving rights and corresponding defenses.

Access the full text caseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

258 So. 3d 1219 ; 2018 Fla. LEXIS 1883 ; 43 Fla. L. Weekly S 459; 2018 WL 5075302

RICHARD DELISLE, Petitioner, vs. CRANE CO., et al., Respondents.

Subsequent History: Rehearing denied by Delisle v. Crane Co., 2018 Fla. LEXIS 2390 (Fla., Dec. 6, 2018)

On remand at, Remanded by Crane Co. v. Delisle, 2019 Fla. App. LEXIS 1598 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist., Feb. 6, 2019)

Prior History:  [1] Application for Review of the Decision of the District Court of Appeal — Direct Conflict of Decisions. Fourth District - Case Nos. 4D13-4351 and 4D14-146 (Broward County).

Crane Co. v. Delisle, 206 So. 3d 94, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16761 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist., Nov. 9, 2016)