Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Are Available to Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Blog
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Elisabeth K. Eubanks
  • Links
  • Contact Us

September 8, 2022 by Jennifer Kennedy

Florida Evidence Code — Amendment — Judicial notice of information taken from web mapping services, global satellite imaging sites, or Internet mapping tools — Adoption of section 90.2035, Florida Statutes, to extent it is procedural, retroactive to date amendment became law

47 Fla. L. Weekly S238a

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA EVIDENCE CODE. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC22-1040. September 8, 2022. Original Proceeding — Florida Bar Code and Rules of Evidence Committee. Counsel: Eric A. Hernandez, Chair, Code and Rules of Evidence Committee, Miami, Joshua E. Doyle, Executive Director, The Florida Bar, and Heather Savage Telfer, Bar Liaison, The Florida Bar, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.

(PER CURIAM.) This matter is before the Court on consideration of a fast-track report submitted by The Florida Bar’s Code and Rules of Evidence Committee (Committee), recommending the adoption to the extent procedural of a recent amendment to the Florida Evidence Code. See Fla. R. Gen. Prac. & Jud. Admin. 2.140(e). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

Earlier this year, the Florida Legislature amended the Florida Evidence Code to include section 90.2035, Florida Statutes (Judicial notice of information taken from web mapping services, global satellite imaging sites, or Internet mapping tools). See ch. 2022-100, § 1, Laws of Fla. Under new section 90.2035, whenever a party intends to offer into evidence information obtained from web mapping services, global satellite imaging sites, or Internet mapping tools, the party must file with the court a notice of intent that includes copies of any image, map, location, distance, or calculation the party intends to introduce. § 90.2035, Fla. Stat. (2022).

An opposing party may object to the court taking judicial notice of the information and entering it into evidence, though in civil cases there is a rebuttable presumption that such information should be judicially noticed. Id. The rebuttable presumption may be overcome if the court finds by the greater weight of the evidence that the information does not fairly and accurately portray what it is being offered to prove or that it otherwise should not be admitted under the Florida Evidence Code. Id. If the court overrules the objection (in either a civil or criminal case), it must take judicial notice of the information and admit it into evidence. Id. In criminal cases, the court must then instruct the jury that it may or may not accept the noticed facts as conclusive. Id.

The Committee recommends adopting section 90.2035, as enacted in chapter 2022-100, section 1, Laws of Florida, to the extent it is procedural.1 The Florida Bar’s Board of Governors unanimously approved the proposal.

Having considered the Committee’s proposal and the relevant legislation, we hereby adopt section 90.2035, Florida Statutes, to the extent it is procedural. Our adoption of the amendment is effective retroactively to the date the amendment became law. Because the amendment was not previously published for comment, interested persons shall have seventy-five days from the date of this opinion to file comments with the Court.2

It is so ordered. (MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, POLSTON, LABARGA, COURIEL, and GROSSHANS, JJ., concur. FRANCIS, J., did not participate.)

THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE AMENDMENTS.

__________________

1See DeLisle v. Crane Co., 258 So. 3d 1219, 1223-24 (Fla. 2018) (recognizing that, with very few exceptions, this Court has traditionally adopted, to the extent procedural, provisions of the Florida Evidence Code as enacted or amended by the Legislature).

2All comments must be filed with the Court on or before November 22, 2022, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on the Committee Chair, Eric A. Hernandez, Post Office Box 531029, Miami, FL 33153, eric@hlmlegal.comcreate new email, and on the Bar Staff Liaison to the Committee, Heather Telfer, htelfer@floridabar.orgcreate new email, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case. The Committee Chair has until December 13, 2022, to file a response to any comments filed with the Court. If filed by an attorney in good standing with The Florida Bar, the comment must be electronically filed via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal (Portal) in accordance with In re Electronic Filing in the Supreme Court of Florida via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC13-7 (Feb. 18, 2013). If filed by a nonlawyer or a lawyer not licensed to practice in Florida, the comment may be, but is not required to be, filed via the Portal. Any person unable to submit a comment electronically must mail or hand-deliver the originally signed comment to the Florida Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk, 500 South Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1927; no additional copies are required or will be accepted.

__________________APPENDIX

Chapter 2022-100, Section 1, Laws of Florida:

90.2035 Judicial notice of information taken from web mapping services, global satellite imaging sites, or Internet mapping tools.

(1)(a) Upon request of a party, a court may take judicial notice of an image, map, location, distance, calculation, or other information taken from a widely accepted web mapping service, global satellite imaging site, or Internet mapping tool, if such image, map, location, distance, calculation, or other information indicates the date on which the information was created.

(b) A party intending to offer such information in evidence at trial or at a hearing must file notice of such intent within a reasonable time, or as defined by court order. The notice must include a copy of the information and specify the Internet address or pathway where such information may be accessed and inspected.

(2)(a) A party may object to the court taking judicial notice of the image, map, location, distance, calculation, or other information taken from a widely accepted web mapping service, global satellite imaging site, or Internet mapping tool within a reasonable time or as defined by court order.

(b) In civil cases, there is a rebuttable presumption that information sought to be judicially noticed under this section should be judicially noticed. The rebuttable presumption may be overcome if the court finds by the greater weight of the evidence that the information does not fairly and accurately portray what it is being offered to prove or that it otherwise should not be admitted into evidence under the Florida Evidence Code.

(c) If the court overrules the objection, the court must take judicial notice of the information and admit the information into evidence.

(3) In criminal cases, the court must instruct the jury that the jury may or may not accept the noticed facts as conclusive.

(4) This section does not affect, expand, or limit standards for any matter that may otherwise be judicially noticed.* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Insurance — Automobile — Insurer who filed a claim under her automobile insurance policy after her vehicle was damaged in an accident sued insurer claiming breach of policy after insured declared the vehicle a total loss and paid her what it deemed the actual cash value of vehicle — Breach of contract — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that insurer breached the policy by using an illegal methodology to calculate actual cash value — District court did not err in ruling insurer’s methodology for calculating actual cash value complied with Florida law — As matter of first impression, Section 626.9743(5), Florida Statutes, which provides that, in calculating “actual cash value” of insured’s vehicle based on actual cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle “derived from … two or more comparable motor vehicles available [in local market area] within the preceding 90 days,” did not require that “actual cash value” equal actual cost to purchase comparable vehicle — Insurer’s use of the Uniform Condition Adjustment, advertised prices of comparable motor vehicles, and the Certified Collateral Corporation ONE Market Valuation system to calculate the actual cash value of insured’s vehicle complied with Florida statute — Statute did not require that insurer use “retail cost as determined from generally recognized motor vehicle industry source” if it utilized one of other two statutory alternative methods for determining cost to purchase comparable motor vehicle — Insurer was entitled to summary judgment on claim that it breached the policy by failing to pay, as part of vehicle’s actual cash value, dealer fees incurred in purchasing replacement vehicle — Insurer was not required to pay insured’s out-of-pocket dealer fees — Under Florida and Eleventh Circuit law, “actual cash value” in an insurance policy means replacement cost less depreciation, and replacement cost includes dealer fees if the policyholder is reasonably likely to need to incur dealer fees — Insured failed to satisfy the standard for inclusion of dealer fees in replacement cost where insured showed a reasonable likelihood that she would incur dealer fees if she chose to purchase her replacement vehicle from a dealer and that a policyholder is reasonably likely to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer, but failed to show that a policyholder is reasonably likely to need to purchase a replacement vehicle from a dealer
  • Torts — Punitive damages — Amendment of complaint — Action alleging that vibration from defendant’s installation of sheet piles during construction on its parcel caused damage to plaintiff’s building — Trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint to assert a claim for punitive damages based on allegation of gross negligence where plaintiff did not make required evidentiary showing to support such a claim — Report produced by third-party contractor warning defendant against the use of large vibratory compaction equipment in construction project, when read together with contractor’s deposition testimony, offered no evidentiary support for plaintiff’s claim that contractor warned defendant against using vibratory equipment in installation of sheet piles — Plaintiff’s expert’s affidavit, which drew illogical conclusions from contractor’s report, offered no support for gross negligence claim
  • Torts — Premises liability — Malls — Dangerous condition — Landscaping features — Vicarious liability — Action against operator of mall arising from injuries plaintiff suffered after stepping into a hole or depression in a raised landscape area which separated mall’s parking lot from the sidewalk that led to mall’s entrance — No error in entering summary judgment in favor of defendant because, as a matter of law, the landscaped area was not a dangerous condition — Evidence that a few people had walked across the landscaped area to get to the sidewalk was not sufficient to create a duty where there was no evidence that the grass bed had become a well-trampled footpath or that the grass bed has been in continuous and obvious use as a pedestrian shortcut such that defendant was put on constructive notice of the condition — Defendant cannot be held vicariously liable for condition created by landscapers where landscapers were not found liable
  • Torts — Automobile accident — Permanent injury — Causation — Trial court improperly directed verdict on causation given conflicting evidence which would have permitted reasonable jury to conclude that plaintiff had a pre-existing back injury caused by weight training or prior participation in competitive crew rowing
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Coverage — Vandalism — Trial court erred by denying insurer’s motion for directed verdict where policy limited coverage to insured’s “residence premises,” and insured did not “reside” at the property at the time of loss — Fact that insured was no longer leasing the property and was intending to move back when property was vandalized does not alter analysis

Blog Archives

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2023 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982