40 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1944–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Gelco Convention Services v. Pettengillgreen2 sentences2017Cohen at 405 (quoting Gelco Convention Servs. v. Pettengill, 710 So.2d 581, 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). 2004Gelco Convention Servs. v. Pettengill, 710 So.2d 581, 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). | 2 | 2 |
Nielsen v. City of Sarasotagreen2 sentences2016Stanley v. Marceaux, 991 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So.2d 731, 733 (Fla.1960)). 2014Id. at 733 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Michaelsgreen1 sentence2024Before Jackson, the Court already had observed a traditional limitation on the rule: when an available and competent witness is “equally available to both parties, no inference should be drawn or comments made on the failure of either party to call the witness.” State v. Michaels, 454 So. 2d 560, 562 (Fla. 1984). | 1 | 1 |
LOT v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Lot v. State, 13 So. 3d 1121, 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (“On appeal, we review the trial court’s limitation of defense counsel’s cross-examination for an abuse of discretion.”). | 1 | 1 |
Florida Carry, Inc. v. University of Floridagreen1 sentence2018In Florida Carry, Inc. v. University of Florida, 180 So. 3d 137, 148-49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (UF), we held that officers, employees, and agents of the State or its subdivisions were not immune from suit under section 790.33 by operation of the limitation in the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in section 768.28(9)(a), Florida Statutes. | 1 | 1 |
Cohen v. Arvingreen1 sentence2017Cohen at 405 (quoting Gelco Convention Servs. v. Pettengill, 710 So.2d 581, 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Stanley v. Marceauxgreen1 sentence2016Stanley v. Marceaux, 991 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (emphasis added) (quoting Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So.2d 731, 733 (Fla.1960)). | 1 | 1 |
Dickinson v. Segalgreen1 sentence2015See Dickinson v. Segal, 219 So.2d 435, 438 (Fla.1969) (“[W]e, by virtue of the authority of that case, recognize this exception but decline to extend it beyond the facts involved there.”); Md. | 1 | 1 |
Sexton v. Stategreen1 sentence2013The fact that “a photograph is prejudicial does not justify its exclusion as evidence; rather, a relevant photograph must be unfairly prejudicial to be excluded.” Hampton v. State, 103 So.3d 98, 115 (Fla.2012) (citing Sexton v. State, 697 So.2d 833, 837 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2027 , 185 L.Ed.2d 892 (2013)). | 1 | 1 |
Hampton v. Stategreen1 sentence2013The fact that “a photograph is prejudicial does not justify its exclusion as evidence; rather, a relevant photograph must be unfairly prejudicial to be excluded.” Hampton v. State, 103 So.3d 98, 115 (Fla.2012) (citing Sexton v. State, 697 So.2d 833, 837 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2027 , 185 L.Ed.2d 892 (2013)). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Moore v. State, 701 So.2d 545, 549 (Fla.1997) (“Limitation of cross-examination is subject to an abuse of discretion standard.”); accord Diaz v. State, 747 So.2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Diaz v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Moore v. State, 701 So.2d 545, 549 (Fla.1997) (“Limitation of cross-examination is subject to an abuse of discretion standard.”); accord Diaz v. State, 747 So.2d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). | 1 | 1 |
REUTER RECYCLING OF FL. INC. v. City of Dania Beachgreen1 sentence2006See Reuter Recycling, 859 So.2d at 1273 (concluding that that arbitration provision was unambiguous and "expressly excludes time-barred claims from the agreement to arbitrate," and that the trial court erred in finding that the parties agreed "to have the arbitrators determine arbitrability as to time-barred claims"). | 1 | 1 |
Geiger ex rel. Geiger v. Mather of Lakeland, Inc.green1 sentence2002However, Fino recognized the limitation on that rule that the "unfavorable inference which may be drawn from the failure of a party to testify is not warranted when there has been a sufficient explanation for such absence or failure to testify." Id. (quoting Geiger v. Mather of Lakeland, Inc., 217 So.2d 897, 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
Massey v. Seaboard Air Line Railroadgreen1 sentence2000See Massey v. Seaboard Air Line R.R., 142 So.2d 296 (Fla. 1962). | 1 | 1 |
Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Schmidtgreen1 sentence1997Publix, 509 So.2d at 978 (emphasis added); see also Voelker v. Combined Ins. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Guardianship of DA McW.green1 sentence1997In re Guardianship of D.A., McW., 429 So.2d 699, 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (quoting State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
| Scientific Games, Inc. v. Dittler Bros., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bryan v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Sparks v. Reeves
green
2 sentences2021This is a rule older than the common law itself . . . .” In fact, “the only limitation on this rule of parental privilege is that as between the parent and the child the ultimate welfare of the child itself must be controlling.” Id. 2016Specifically, “the only limitation on this rule of parental privilege is that as between the parent and the child the ultimate welfare of the child must be controlling.” Id. (quoting Sparks, 97 So.2d at 20 ). | 3 | 1991–2021 |
Padgett v. Dept. of Health & Rehab. Services
green
2 sentences2024And third, we - 11 - reiterated that the “the only limitation on this rule of parental privilege is that as between the parent and the child[,] the ultimate welfare of the child must be controlling.” Id. (quoting Padgett, 577 So. 2d at 570 ). 2024And third, we - 11 - reiterated that the “the only limitation on this rule of parental privilege is that as between the parent and the child[,] the ultimate welfare of the child must be controlling.” Id. (quoting Padgett, 577 So. 2d at 570 ). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
S.M., etc. v. Florida Department of Children and Families
green
2 sentences2024And third, we - 11 - reiterated that the “the only limitation on this rule of parental privilege is that as between the parent and the child[,] the ultimate welfare of the child must be controlling.” Id. (quoting Padgett, 577 So. 2d at 570 ). 2024And third, we - 11 - reiterated that the “the only limitation on this rule of parental privilege is that as between the parent and the child[,] the ultimate welfare of the child must be controlling.” Id. (quoting Padgett, 577 So. 2d at 570 ). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Kent v. Burdick
green
2 sentences2002Id. 1994Id. | 2 | 1994–2002 |
In Re Estate of Pratt
green
2 sentences1977The appellee argues that the supreme court in the case of In re Pratt’s Estate, 88 So.2d 499 (Fla.1956) precludes application of the doctrine where a particular gift fails in an otherwise valid will. 1977The appellee argues that the supreme court in the case of In re Pratt's Estate, 88 So.2d 499 (Fla. 1956) precludes application of the doctrine where a particular gift fails in an otherwise valid will. | 2 | 1977–1977 |
Jackson v. State
green
1 sentence2024Jackson reaffirmed this limitation on the missing witness rule and clarified that the factfinder may draw an adverse inference from a missing witness where the defendant “voluntarily assumes some burden of proof by asserting the defenses of alibi, self-defense, and defense of others, relying on facts that could be elicited only from a witness who is not equally available to the state.” 575 So. 2d at 188 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
PETERSON BALTAZARE SIMBERT v. STATE OF FLORIDA
green
1 sentence2019While the attorney might well have argued that a reasonable doubt arose from the inability to pinpoint the victim’s whereabouts after she returned home with her mother, the trial court properly sustained an objection to the argument that she wandered down the hall, unsupervised, in the apartment complex, in the absence of any evidence to support that speculation. -3- Consistent with Simbert, 226 So. 3d at 888 , we reverse the conviction on Count I and remand to the trial court for the entry of a judgment of acquittal on that count. 1 WARNER, J., and WEISS, DALIAH, Associate Judge, concur. * * | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Brooks v. New Hampshire
green
1 sentence2013The fact that “a photograph is prejudicial does not justify its exclusion as evidence; rather, a relevant photograph must be unfairly prejudicial to be excluded.” Hampton v. State, 103 So.3d 98, 115 (Fla.2012) (citing Sexton v. State, 697 So.2d 833, 837 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2027 , 185 L.Ed.2d 892 (2013)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Hughes v. Indiana
green
1 sentence2013The fact that “a photograph is prejudicial does not justify its exclusion as evidence; rather, a relevant photograph must be unfairly prejudicial to be excluded.” Hampton v. State, 103 So.3d 98, 115 (Fla.2012) (citing Sexton v. State, 697 So.2d 833, 837 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 2027 , 185 L.Ed.2d 892 (2013)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
cluster 308230
green
1 sentence2007See § 672.719; Council Bros., Inc. v. Ray Burner Co., 473 F.2d 400 (5th Cir.1973) (interpreting Florida law). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
FL v. Department of Children and Families
green
1 sentence2003In Padgett , the court explained: In fact, "the only limitation on this rule of parental privilege is that as between the parent and the child the ultimate welfare of the child itself must be controlling." Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Fino v. Nodine
green
1 sentence2002However, Fino recognized the limitation on that rule that the "unfavorable inference which may be drawn from the failure of a party to testify is not warranted when there has been a sufficient explanation for such absence or failure to testify." Id. (quoting Geiger v. Mather of Lakeland, Inc., 217 So.2d 897, 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Courtenay v. DHRS
neutral
1 sentence1992See also, Scientific Games v. Dittler Bros., Inc., 586 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Courtenay v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 581 So.2d 621 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| McKoy v. United States green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation v. Donovan green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| HOLYOKE MUT. INS., ETC. v. Concrete Equipment green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Ins. Co. of North America v. Avis Rent-A-Car green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Housing Inv. Corp. v. Carris green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Local Lodge No. 1424, International Ass'n of MacHinists v. National Labor Relations Board green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. Dexter green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Florida Nursery & Landscape Co. v. Nally neutral | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Belden v. Lynch green | 1 | 1962–1962 |
| Tucker Brothers, Inc. v. Menard green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Epperson v. Epperson green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Johns v. Johns neutral | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Montverde Development Corp. v. Howey-In-The-Hills green | 1 | 1950–1950 |
| Crumbley v. City of Jacksonville green | 1 | 1950–1950 |
| Wilson & Co. v. City of Jacksonville green | 1 | 1950–1950 |
| Fillyau v. Laverty green | 1 | 1944–1944 |
| Browne v. Browne green | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.