Executive Order re: Expanding Full Phase 1: Safe. Smart. Step-by-Step. Plan for Florida’s Recovery

#2020-131 Executive Order re: Expanding Full Phase 1: Safe. Smart. Step-by-Step. Plan for Florida’s Recovery

Amendment 2 – Administrative Order re: Comprehensive Covid-19 Emergency Measures For The Florida State Courts

AOSC20-23 – Amendment 2 – ordered 5/21/2020 Administrative Order re: Comprehensive Covid-19 Emergency Measures For The Florida State Courts

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Fifth District Court of Appeal

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Fifth District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court did not commit error in denying the Plaintiff’s motion for new trial in a medical malpractice action.  The Appellant’s position on appeal was that the Trial Court erred in denying the motion for new trial based upon improper closing arguments by counsel.   Mr. Azzarone successfully argued that the jury’s verdict must be affirmed as there was no showing made on appeal that the Trial Court abused its discretion in denying the motion for new trial based upon the  failure to satisfy the standard set forth in Murphy v. International Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 2000).

Webster v. Glover

Executive Order re: Full Phase 1: Safe. Smart. Step-by-Step. Plan for Florida’s Recovery

#2020-123 Executive Order re: Full Phase 1: Safe. Smart. Step-by-Step. Plan for Florida’s Recovery

Executive Order re: Expanding Phase 1: Safe. Smart. Step-by-Step. Plan for Florida’s Recovery

#2020-120 Executive Order re: Expanding Phase 1: Safe. Smart. Step-by-Step. Plan for Florida’s Recovery

Amendment 1 – Administrative Order re: Comprehensive Covid-19 Emergency Measures For The Florida State Courts

AOSC20-23 – Amendment 1 – ordered 5/4/2020 Administrative Order re: Comprehensive Covid-19 Emergency Measures For The Florida State Courts

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Second District Court of Appeal

Jason Azzarone was successful in arguing to the Second District Court of Appeal that the Trial Court did not err in dismissing a case with prejudice in a claim filed by an inmate in Hillsborough County, in which the firm represented a medical group which provided medical care to Hillsborough County inmates. The Plaintiff alleged that he was denied medical care. A motion to dismiss was filed, arguing that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the condition precedent of notifying the Florida Department of Insurance of the filing of a civil action, failed to satisfy Florida’s medical malpractice pre-suit screening requirements and failed to comply with Florida law regarding the filing of a lawsuit by an indigent prisoner. The Trial Court agreed, and further sanctioned the Plaintiff, holding that he could not file any further actions in Hillsborough County without an attorney. The Plaintiff attempted to move for rehearing, but was untimely in doing so. On appeal, the Second District agreed that the Plaintiff’s motions were untimely.