Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitbreach of contracttrialverdictmotiondiscriminationjury trial

contractplaintiffnegligenceappealtrialcommon law

Related Cases

Maynard v. Florida Bd. of Educ. ex rel. University of South Florida, 998 So.2d 1201, 241 Ed. Law Rep. 511, 28 IER Cases 1519, 34 Fla. L. Weekly D176

Facts

Donald Maynard was a participant in the University of South Florida's surgical residency program, which was governed by a contract. After concerns about his progress, the university terminated his contract, prompting Maynard to file discrimination complaints and later a lawsuit against the university. The university responded with counterclaims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, leading to a jury trial where the jury found in favor of the university on both Maynard's claims and the university's counterclaims.

As a participant in the University's surgical residency program, Maynard entered into a contract with the University that regulated the terms and conditions of his continued participation in the five-year program.

Issue

Whether the University of South Florida could maintain a malicious prosecution counterclaim against Donald Maynard, and whether Maynard was entitled to a new trial on his claims of breach of contract and retaliation.

1 university was not entitled to raise malicious prosecution counterclaim against resident;

Rule

A state entity may not maintain a malicious prosecution action against an individual who has sued the state without success, as established in Cate v. Oldham.

The Florida Supreme Court determined that the right to present a complaint to the government regarding the government's conduct is essential.

Analysis

The court determined that the university, as a state entity, was not entitled to bring a malicious prosecution claim against Maynard because such claims are not permitted under Florida law. The court also found that Maynard had not waived his argument regarding the university's lack of standing, as he raised the issue in his motion to set aside the verdict.

We begin with an analysis of Cate, 450 So.2d 224. In that case, the Florida Supreme Court responded to the following certified question posed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals: “Under the common law of Florida, may a state official who has been sued in his official capacity for alleged negligence in the exercise of his official duties, maintain an action for malicious prosecution against plaintiffs in the negligence action?”

Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment on the malicious prosecution claim and remanded the case for a new trial on Maynard's breach of contract and retaliation claims.

We therefore reverse the final judgment as to that claim and remand with instructions that the trial court enter an order dismissing the University's malicious prosecution claim.

Who won?

The appellate court ruled in favor of Donald Maynard by reversing the malicious prosecution claim against him, stating that the university lacked standing to bring such a claim.

The jury found in favor of Maynard on the University's abuse of process counterclaim.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Monroe Division, Litton Business Systems, Inc. v. De Bari, 562 F.2d 30, 24 Fed.R.Serv.2d 216

Snipes v. City of New York, 43 Misc.3d 1203(A), 990 N.Y.S.2d 440 (Table), 2014 WL 1258232, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 50457(U)

Lehrman v. Gulf Oil Corp., 500 F.2d 659, 1974-2 Trade Cases P 75,236

Birchler v. Castello Land Co., Inc., 133 Wash.2d 106, 942 P.2d 968

Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 94 S.Ct. 2687, 41 L.Ed.2d 912