JOSE ANTONIO RAMOS v. STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding the district court abused its discretion by invading the province of the jury when it resolved factual disputes—like the accuracy of the disclosures and the reasonableness of Green’s inquiry—and found the elements of breach and negligence satisfied as a matter of law
• overturning a verdict for negligent misrepresentation where the district court relied on Civil Rule 26 to supply the duty of care, reasoning that the Rules Enabling Act does not allow the rules to expand substantive rights
• “An expert who supplies nothing but a bottom line supplies nothing of value to the judicial process.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).