green
Positive treatment
17.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1917 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1917
1971
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Larry Klayman v. Portfolio Media, Inc.
Gilbert v. Eckerd Corp. of Fla., Inc., 34 So. 3d 773, 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (internal and external citations omitted); cf. Bob Montgomery Real Est. v. Djokic, 858 So. 2d 371, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reversing dismissal where evidence of misconduct was “tenuous and conflicting”); Bertrand v. Belhomme, 892 So. 2d 1150, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (reversing dismissal where the record did not establish an intent to deceive or willful bad faith). “[I]ntrinsic fraud, on the other hand, applies to fraudulent conduct that arises within a proceeding and pertains to the issues in the case that hav…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Visiting Nurse Association of Florida, Inc. v. Jupiter Medical Center
For instance, in Schnurmacher, this Court stated: The reasons underlying the need for finality of arbitration awards were expressed in Johnson v. Wells, 72 Fla. 290, 297 , 73 So. 188, 190-91 (1916): The reason for the high degree of conclusiveness which attaches to an award made by arbitrators is that the parties have by agreement substituted a tribunal of their own choosing for the one provided and established by law, to the end that the expense usually incurred by litigation may be avoided and the cause speedily and finally determined.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Olesen v. General Electric Capital Corp.
Johnson v. Wells, 72 Fla. 290, 299 , 73 So. 188, 191 (1916) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Toiberman v. Tisera
As was initially explained by the Florida Supreme Court in Johnson v. Wells, 72 Fla. 290 , 73 So. 188, 190-91 (1916), and reiterated in Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega, 542 So.2d 1327, 1328-29 (Fla.1989): The reason for the high degree of conclusiveness which attaches to an award made by arbitrators is that the parties have by agreement substituted a tribunal of their own choosing for the one provided and established by law, to the end that the expense usually incurred by litigation may be avoided and the cause speedily and finally determined.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Parker v. Parker
Johnson v. Wells, 72 Fla. 290, 299 , 73 So. 188, 191 (1916) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arnold v. Morgan Keegan & Co., Inc.
These reasons, articulated by the Supreme Court of Florida over seventy-five years ago in Johnson v. Wells, 72 Fla. 290 , 73 So. 188, 190-91 (1916), remain relevant under today’s arbitration legislation.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Miami
As stated by the Florida Supreme Court in Johnson v. Wells, 72 Fla. 290 , 73 So. 188, 190-91 (1916): The reason for the high degree of conclusiveness which attaches to an award made by arbitrators is that the parties have by agreement substituted a tribunal of their own choosing for the one provided and established by law, to the end that the expense usually incurred by litigation may be avoided and the cause speedily and finally determined.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriega
The reasons underlying the need for finality of arbitration awards were expressed in Johnson v. Wells, 72 Fla. 290, 297 ; 73 So. 188, 190-91 (1916): The reason for the high degree of conclusiveness which attaches to an award made by arbitrators is that the parties have by agreement substituted a tribunal of their own choosing for the one provided and established by law, to the end that the expense usually incurred by litigation may be avoided and the cause speedily and finally determined.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lake Plumbing v. SEABREEZE CONST. CORP.
Johnson v. Wells, 72 Fla. 290 , 73 So. 188, 190 (1916).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
DeClaire v. Yohanan
Johnson v. Wells, 72 Fla. 290, 299 , 73 So. 188, 191 (1916) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
City of West Palm Beach v. PALM BEACH CTY.
The Supreme Court of Florida stated in Johnson v. Wells, 72 Fla. 290 , 73 So. 188, 190-91 (1916): The reason for the high degree of conclusiveness which attaches to an award made by arbitrators is that the parties have by agreement substituted a tribunal of their own choosing for the one provided and established by law, to the end that the expense usually incurred by litigation may be avoided and the cause speedily and finally determined.
cited
Cited "see"
Robert A. Harris v. Michael Dazzo
See Johnson v. Wells, 73 So. 188, 190 (Fla. 1916); Gaines Constr.
cited
Cited "see"
Bankers & Shippers Insurance Company v. Gonzalez
See Johnson v. Wells, 72 Fla. 290 , 73 So. 188, 192 (1916), and cases cited at 5 Am.Jur.2d, Arbitration and Award § 167.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Karppinen v. Karl Kiefer MacHine Co.
Compare Johnson v. Wells, 72 Fla. 290 , 73 So. 188 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nathan Edwards, in Error
v.
The State of Florida, in Error
v.
The State of Florida, in Error
A. H. Bell, for Plaintiff in Error;, T. F. West, Attorney General, and C. 0. Andrezvs, Assistant, for the-State.
Whitfield.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Whitfield, J.
—On writ of error to a judgment of conviction of murder in the second degree it is contended that the evidence does not establish the identity of the deceased and that the testimony shows justification, thereby not supporting the verdict. The body of the deceased was identified by testimony as to a deformed hand and a cut on the head received just before the homicide. There is no substantial showing of justification and ample evidence to sustain the verdict.
The judgment is affirmed.
All concur.