green
Positive treatment
Trending · 110 recent citers
7.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Sopp v. State
We certify that the same issue reviewed in this case is currently pending before the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 117 *396 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Petrik v. City of Pembroke Pines
Dynamics Land Sys., Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 , 124 S.Ct. 1236 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1094 (2004)); see also Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Eghbal, 54 So.3d 525, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (adopting federal analysis for state age discrimination claim, including the requirement that, to state a prima facie case, plaintiff must prove “the position was filled by a worker who was substantially younger than the plaintiff’), review denied, Miami-Dade County v. Eghbal, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Walker v. City of Pembroke Pines
Dynamics Land Sys., Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 , 124 S.Ct. 1236 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1094 (2004)); see also Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Eghbal, 54 So.3d 525, 526 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (adopting federal analysis for state age discrimination claim, including the requirement that, to state a prima facie case, plaintiff must prove “the position was filled by a worker who was substantially younger than the plaintiff’), review denied, Miami-Dade County v. Eghbal, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mogena v. State
See also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Cushon v. State
See also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), rev. granted 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams v. State
See Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367, 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which the federal court held that section 893.101 violates due process and is unconstitutional on its face); Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Roche v. State
See Smith v. State, 79 So.3d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011) ], and acknowledging “the uncertainty caused by Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011)]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bryant v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.Sd 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gardner v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rose v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which a federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Walker v. State
See Smith v. State, 79 So.3d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011) ], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011)” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is co…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alvarez v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding “section 89.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional,” and rejecting Shelton v. Secretary , Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which federal court held section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Page v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011), and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lundy v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gonzalez v. State
See Smith v. State, 79 So.3d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011) ], and acknowledging “the uncertainty caused by Shelton [v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.1…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Diaz v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla. 2011) ], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by Shelton [v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Piratova v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722, 722-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that “section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional”; rejecting Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289, 1308 (M.D.Fla.2011), in which federal court held that section 893.13, Florida Statutes (2004), “violates the due process clause and that the statute is unconstitutional on its face”); Ortega v. State, 76 So.3d 346 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rodriguez v. State
See Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); accord Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla. 2011) ], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by [Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Woods v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011)], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by Shelton [v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011)]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Giraldo v. State
See Smith v. State, 79 So.3d 127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla.2011) ], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by [Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Diaz v. State
See Little v. State, 77 So.3d 722 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Adams v. State, 76 So.3d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding that section 893.13, as amended by section 893.101, Florida Statutes (2002), is constitutional); see also Flagg v. State, 74 So.3d 138, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (citing State v. Adkins, 71 So.3d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) [review granted, 71 So.3d 117 (Fla. 2011) ], and acknowledging “uncertainty caused by Shelton [v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 802 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D.Fla.2011) ]” but reaffirming its view that section 893.13 is constitutional).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
McCOLLUM
v.
LIEBHERR AMERICA, INC.
v.
LIEBHERR AMERICA, INC.
SC10-2105.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Aug 30, 2011.
Published
DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
Review denied.