green
Positive treatment
6.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1942 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1942
1984
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dade Savings & Loan Ass'n v. City of North Miami
As was observed by our supreme court in City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 , 3 So.2d 364, 366 (1941), and quoted in Allapattah Community, 379 So.2d at 394 : The fact that his land is situated across the street from that on which commercial enterprises may be operated was not alone enough to support plaintiff’s position that he should be given the same latitude in the use of his property.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Allapattah Community Association, Inc. v. City of Miami
As our supreme court wisely observed may years ago in City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 , 3 So.2d 364, 366 (1941); At the juncture of these streets property which may be devoted to business abruptly ends and that which may be used for hotels and apartments as suddenly begins but there must be a line of demarcation between them somewhere.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ben Lomond, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls
(2×)
Morris v. City of Nashville, 207 Tenn. 672 at 681-682 , 343 S.W.2d 847 at 851 (1961). [45] Note 40, supra, 272 U.S. at p. 387 , 47 S.Ct. at p. 118. [46] 122 Main Street Corporation v. City of Brockton, 323 Mass. 646, 650 , 84 N.E.2d 13, 16 , 8 A.L.R.2d 955 (1949); Barney & Casey Co. v. Town of Milton, 324 Mass. 440, 448 , 87 N.E.2d 9, 14-15 (1949); Criterion Service, Inc. v. City of East Cleveland, 88 N.E.2d 300, 303 (Ohio App. 1949). [47] City of New Orleans v. Levy, 223 La. 14 , 64 So.2d 798 (1953) (historic and architectural qualities preserved): Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 333 …
discussed
Cited "see"
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Forbes/Cohen Florida Properties, L.P.
See N. Bay Vill., 88 So.2d at 526 . 2 The City argues that it had a rational basis for enacting the Resolution, claiming the Resolution preserves the “form, function, and composition of the Gardens PUD” and promotes “the health, safety, and welfare of the public at large.” Although the interests described may be a legitimate governmental interest, see City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 , 3 So.2d 364, 366-67 (1941), the Resolution’s total lack of guidance would allow for arbitrary and capricious enforcement “having no substantial relation to the public health, t…
cited
Cited "see"
City of Lake Wales v. Lamar Adv. Ass'n
See City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 , 3 So.2d 364 (1941).
cited
Cited "see"
Wolff v. DADE CTY.
See City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 , 3 So.2d 364 , 366 (1941); and Polk Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Lakeland, 143 So.2d 917, 918-919 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962).
discussed
Cited "see"
Moviematic Ind. v. BD. OF CTY. COM'RS
See City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 , 3 So.2d 364 (1941); Merritt v. Peters, 65 So.2d 861 (Fla. 1953); Sunad, Inc. v. City of Sarasota, 122 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1960); William Murray, Inc. v. Jacksonville, 254 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); City of Boca Raton v. Tradewind Hills, Inc., 216 So.2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); County of Brevard v. Woodham, 223 So.2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Watson v. Mayflower Property, Inc., 223 So.2d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); City of Coral Gables v. Wood, 305 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) and E.B.
discussed
Cited "see"
Moviematic Industries Corp. v. Board of County Commissioners
See City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 , 3 So.2d 364 (1941); Merritt v. Peters, 65 So.2d 861 (Fla.1953); Sunad, Inc. v. City of Sarasota, 122 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1960); William Murray, Inc. v. Jacksonville, 254 So.2d 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); City of Boca Raton v. Tradewind Hills, Inc., 216 So.2d 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968); County of Brevard v. Woodham, 223 So.2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969); Watson v. Mayflower Property, Inc., 223 So.2d 368 (Fla 4th DCA 1969); City of Coral Gables v. Wood, 305 So.2d 261 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) and E.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Savel
(2×)
See City of Miami Beach v. Ocean and Inland Company, 3 So.2d 364 (Fla., 1941).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stewart v. Green
See City of Miami Beach v. Ocean and Inland Co. (1941), 147 Fla. 480 , 3 So.2d 364 ; Hav-A-Tampa Cigar Co. v. Johnson (1941), 149 Fla.. 148, 5 So.2d 433 ; City of Miami Beach v. Texas Co. (1940), 141 Fla. 616 , 194 So. 368 , 128 A.L.R. 350 ; and Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926), 272 U.S. 365 , 47 S.Ct. 114 , 71 L.Ed. 303 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Gulf Oil Corp. v. City of Coral Gables
See City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 , 3 So.2d 364 ; City of Miami v. Rosen, 151 Fla. 677 , 10 So.2d 307 ; City of Miami Beach v. The Texas Co., 141 Fla. 616 , 194 So. 368 , 128 A.L.R. 350 ; Ex Parte Wise, 141 Fla. 222 , 192 So. 872 ; Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 , 47 S.Ct. 114 , 71 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Diamond v. Rice
(2×)
See Adler v. Saffran, 147 Fla. 549 , 3 So.2d 364 ; Glickstein v. Setzer, Fla. 1955, 78 So.2d 374 .
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Coral Gables v. State Ex Rel. Worley
See City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 , 3 So.2d 364 ; City of Miami v. Rosen, 151 Fla. 677 , 10 So.2d 307 ; City of Miami Beach v. Texas Co., 141 Fla. 616 , 194 So. 368 , 128 A.L.R. 350 ; Ex parte Wise, 141 Fla. 222 , 192 So. 872 ; Euclid [Ohio] v. Amber Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 , 47 S.Ct. 114 , 71 L.Ed. 303 , 54 A.L.R. 1016 , and similar cases.
discussed
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. Dixie Inn, Inc. v. City of Miami
See City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480 , 3 So. (2nd) 364 ; City of Miami v. Rosen, 151 Fla. 677 , 10 So. (2nd) 307 ; City of Miami Beach v. The Texas Co., 141 Fla. 616 , 194 So. 368 ; Ex Parte Wise, 141 Fla. 222 , 192 So. 872 ; Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 U.S. 272 , 47 S. Ct. 114 , 71 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Doris Adler, Joined by Her Husband and Next Friend, Joseph Adler
v.
Nelly Saffran.
v.
Nelly Saffran.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Jun 24, 1941.
Marshall F. Sanders, for Plaintiffs in Error.
A.C. Franks, for Defendant in Error.
Buford, Brown, Whitfield, Terrell, Chapman, Thomas, Adams.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
Buford, J.
This case is before us on writ of error to a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, defendant in error here, in the sum of $2500.00
The suit was for damages alleged to have been caused by an assault and battery. There is ample evidence in the record to sustain the conclusion evidently reached by the jury that the defendant pushed or shoved the plaintiff, causing her to fall whereby her arm was broken and her shoulder dislocated.
The evidence is sufficient to show such conduct on the part of the defendant resulting in such injury to the plaintiff as would make the defendant liable to plaintiff in damages for the injury sustained.
In the case of Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 199 Sou. 358, we affirmed the judgment in the sum of $3500.00 for damages resulting from assault and battery and, while the injury suffered in the instant case was not as severe as that which was shown to[*550] have been suffered in the Pandula case, we cannot say that the verdict and judgment are so excessive as to require a remittitur or reversal of the judgment. See also Winn & Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 Sou. 214.
The judgment, therefore, stands affirmed.
Brown, C. J., Whitfield, Terrell, Chapman, Thomas and Adams, J. J., concur.