How cited: Cluster 1150737 · Go Syfert

Cluster 1150737

green · 43 citation events across 6 courts. Showing the 15 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Green 15
green Caravakis v. Allstate Indem. Co. (2001)
Quote Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) ("[A] trial court in this district is obliged to follow the precedents of other district courts of appeal absent a controlling precedent of this court or the supreme court.").
"[A] trial court in this district is obliged to follow the precedents of other district courts of appeal absent a controlling precedent of this court or the supreme court."
green Lewis v. State (1991)
Quote Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) ("[A] trial court in this district is obliged to follow the precedents of other district courts of appeal absent a controlling precedent of this court or the supreme court.").
"[A] trial court in this district is obliged to follow the precedents of other district courts of appeal absent a controlling precedent of this court or the supreme court."
green Onewest Bank v. Palmero (2019)
Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
We are confident that the trial court, with the benefit of this Court’s decision in Smith, would have applied Smith and concluded that Mrs. Palmero is a “Borrower” under the instant mortgage, without needing to address whether the federal reverse mortgage statute prohibited foreclosure in this case.7 See 12 Ramcharitar v. Derosins, 35 So. 3d 94, 98 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (stating that stare decisis obligates the trial court to “follow the decisions of the district courts of appe…
green Ramcharitar v. Derosins (2010)
Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
This obligation extends to the circuit courts of this state as well, which are further obligated to follow the decisions of the district courts of appeal “unless and until they are overruled by the supreme court.” See Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
green Mitchell v. State (2007)
Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
As a result, all trial courts in Florida are bound to follow Powell unless they conclude that another opinion of the district court in their district controls, see Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), or unless this court or the supreme court stays the legal authority of Powell pending review in the supreme court.
green Breed Technologies, Inc. v. AlliedSignal Inc. (2003)
Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
This court has previously stated that "a trial court in this district is obliged to follow the precedents of other district courts of appeal absent a controlling precedent of this court or the supreme court." Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); see also In re N.Z.B., 779 So.2d 508, 510 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
green State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Adair (1998)
Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
See State v. Bamber, 592 So.2d 1129, 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Pimm v. Pimm, 568 So.2d 1299, 1299 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
green State v. Taylor (1990)
Rule Authority · Fla. Cir. Ct.
Where the appellate court in its own district has not decided an issue, in the absence of conflicting authority a trial court must follow decisions of other District Courts of Appeal, Chapman v Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
green K.N.B. v. M.C. (2000)
Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
green In Re NZB (2000)
Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
green Anderson v. Anderson (1999)
Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
green Howard v. State (1991)
Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
green Kiefer v. Fortune Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (1984)
Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Dillon v. Chapman, 404 So.2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Stanfill v. State, 384 So.2d 141 (Fla.1980); and State v. Hayes, 333 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
green Kiefer v. FORTUNE FED. SAV. & LOAN ASSOCIATION (1984)
Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578, 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Dillon v. Chapman, 404 So.2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Stanfill v. State, 384 So.2d 141 (Fla. 1980); and State v. Hayes, 333 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
green Weiman v. McHaffie (1984)
Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see
See Chapman v. Pinellas County, 423 So.2d 578, 480 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1982); Dillon v. Chapman, 404 So.2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Stanfill v. State, 384 So.2d 141 (Fla. 1980); and State v. Hayes, 333 So.2d 51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). [3] Since the McHaffies' attempt to alienate their property fell within three years after October 15, 1982, they are entitled to require the Weimans to show an impairment of their security before the due-on-sale clause may be enforced.