The Florida Supreme Court’s oral argument schedule this month proves that the excitement of March madness is not confined to the NCAA basketball tournament.

The first case heard by the Court this month was The League of Women Voters of Florida v. Detzner (SC14-1905), the latest iteration of the long-running litigation relating to the redistricting of Florida’s congressional district map. At trial, two congressional districts were invalidated as having been drawn with an impermissible intent to favor a political party; however, the trial court refused to invalidate a number of other contested districts. On appeal, the League of Women Voters and other challengers argue that the entire congressional district map is tainted by the explicit partisan bias that was found to be behind the invalidated congressional districts. The legislature counters that the two invalid districts have been properly revised, and that the Supreme Court ought to uphold the validity of other districts, which were minimally revised with changes to the two invalidated districts. Briefs are here. Video of argument is here.

In Crews v. State (SC14-319), the Court heard arguments about whether the sexual abuse of a minor by a teacher outside of school constitutes misconduct in office for purposes of an extended statute of limitations under section 775.12(b), Florida Statutes. Briefs are here. Video of argument is here.

Hamahovitch v. Hamahovitch (SC14-277), argued on March 5, presents questions of whether and to what extent broad waivers of interests in a spouse’s property in a prenuptial agreement may apply to the appreciation in value and earnings from such property. Briefs are here. Video of argument is here.

Joerg v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co. (SC13-1768) centers on whether evidence of Medicare coverage should have been admitted at trial to determine a damage award for future medical expenses. Briefs are here. Video of argument is here.

On March 25, the Court will hear argument in consolidated appeals in State v. McAdams (SC14-788 and SC14-826). In that case the Court will decide whether an adult suspect who is being voluntarily interviewed in an interrogation room has a due process right to be informed that an attorney has been retained, is in the law enforcement office, and wishes to speak to the suspect. A secondary issue that the Court might consider is whether the voluntary interview became a custodial interrogation, where the suspect was presented with questions about blood evidence that may have created a belief that the adult was indeed a prime suspect. Briefs are here.