24 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bank of South Palm Beaches v. Stocktongreen2 sentences1994Both sides agree that “first in time is the first in right.” Bank of South Palm Beaches v. Stockton, Whatley, Bavin & Co., 473 So.2d 1358, 1360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); § 695.01, Fla.Stat. (1993). 1994Both sides agree that "first in time is the first in right." Bank of South Palm Beaches v. Stockton, Whatley, Davin & Co., 473 So.2d 1358, 1360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); § 695.01, Fla. Stat. (1993). | 2 | 2 |
cluster 796678green1 sentence2025"Given two conflicting but reasonable interpretations, a contract will be viewed as ambiguous at the early stage of summary judgment." Id. at 1287 (quoting In re Color Tile Inc., 475 F.3d 508, 515-16 (3d Cir. 2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Hialeah Hotel, Inc. v. Woodsgreen1 sentence2025See Hialeah Hotel, Inc. v. Woods, 778 So.2d 314, 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“Rule 1.540 applies only to final judgments, not to interlocutory orders.”). | 1 | 1 |
Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2022See Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1258 (Fla. 2017) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Valcarcel v. CHASE BANK USA NAgreen1 sentence2019Ultimately, the Association dismissed its claims against all other defendants. 3 In its brief, the Association asserts it has filed, separate and apart from this appeal, an independent action against DDA Engineers. 3 Engineers mistakenly relies on Valcarcel v. Chase Bank USA NA, 54 So. 3d 989, 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), which held that “[a]n order dismissing an action without prejudice and without granting leave to amend is a final appealable order.” But here, unlike in Valcarcel, the order denying the Association’s motion for leave to amend did not dismiss the action. | 1 | 1 |
Rados v. Radosgreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., Bartow HMA, LLC v. Kirkland, 146 So. 3d 1213, 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ("A trial court cannot award appellate attorney's fees unless the appellate court has authorized such an award." (quoting Rados v. Rados, 791 So. 2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001))). | 1 | 1 |
Bartow HMA, LLC v. Kirklandgreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., Bartow HMA, LLC v. Kirkland, 146 So. 3d 1213, 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ("A trial court cannot award appellate attorney's fees unless the appellate court has authorized such an award." (quoting Rados v. Rados, 791 So. 2d 1130, 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001))). | 1 | 1 |
Kavouras v. Mario City Restaurant Corp.green1 sentence2017Kavouras v. Mario City Restaurant Corp., 88 So.3d 213, 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Chancey v. Chanceygreen1 sentence2016See Torrenga, 153 So.3d at 953-55; Depiero, 178 So.3d at 553 (holding that where a motion sets forth such a “colorable claim for relief, [the mov-ant] is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the motion” (citing Chancey v. Chancey, 880 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004))). | 1 | 1 |
Douglas v. Bronsongreen1 sentence2016See Torrenga, 153 So.3d at 953-55; Depiero, 178 So.3d at 553 (holding that where a motion sets forth such a “colorable claim for relief, [the mov-ant] is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the motion” (citing Chancey v. Chancey, 880 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004))). | 1 | 1 |
Suntrust Mortgage v. Dean Calvin Torrenga and Kathleen Ann Torrengagreen1 sentence2016See Torrenga, 153 So.3d at 953-55; Depiero, 178 So.3d at 553 (holding that where a motion sets forth such a “colorable claim for relief, [the mov-ant] is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the motion” (citing Chancey v. Chancey, 880 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004))). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Wellington Station Condo. Ass'ngreen1 sentence2014Ass' n, Inc., 633 So.2d 43, 44 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (stating “[sjince the Association’s motion and complaint requested a finding that Taylor was liable to the Association for willfully breaching his fiduciary duty, the trial court would necessarily have to make a finding that Taylor acted with intent in order to grant the motion.”) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
ARKY, FREED v. Bowmar Instrument Corp.green1 sentence2013See, e.g., Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson, Greer, Weaver & Harris, P.A. v. Bowmar Instrument Corp., 537 So.2d 561 (Fla.1988); E.I. | 1 | 1 |
Medero v. Florida Power & Light Co.green1 sentence2013The trial court granted the Association’s motion for a protective order and this petition for certiorari followed. ‘While an order denying discovery is not ordinarily reviewable by certiorari, certiorari review of orders denying discovery has been granted where it was found that the injury caused by the order was irreparable.” Medero v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 658 So.2d 566, 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Bender v. Caregivers of America, Inc.green1 sentence2011“The standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo.” Bender v. CareGivers of Am., Inc., 42 So.3d 893, 894 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (quoting Mobley v. Gilbert E. | 1 | 1 |
Cummins v. Allstate Indem. Co.green1 sentence2011Co., 732 So.2d 380, 382-83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). 1 Qualcom next argues that the trial court erred in granting the Association’s motion for summary judgment on Qual-com’s counterclaim for lost profits. | 1 | 1 |
Stephl v. Mooregreen2 sentences2005See Stephl v. Moore, 94 Fla. 313 , 114 So. 455 (1927); Don Cesar Prop. 2005See Stephl v. Moore, 94 Fla. 313 , 114 So. 455 (1927); Don Cesar Prop. | 1 | 1 |
T & N PLC v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'ngreen1 sentence2005See id. at 244 . [5] FIGA attacks the decision in Ramsey as an outlier, contravening the well-reasoned decisions in T & N PLC v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 800 F.Supp. 1259 (E.D.Pa.1992); Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund, 194 Ariz. 488 , 984 P.2d 574 (Ct.App.1999); Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n, 44 Cal.3d 775 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 (1988); Veillon v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 608 So.2d 670 (La.Ct.App.1992); Schreffler v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 402 Pa.Super. 309 , 586 A.2d 983 (1991); and Vaughn v. | 1 | 1 |
Washington Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Ramseygreen1 sentence2005See id. at 244 . [5] FIGA attacks the decision in Ramsey as an outlier, contravening the well-reasoned decisions in T & N PLC v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 800 F.Supp. 1259 (E.D.Pa.1992); Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund, 194 Ariz. 488 , 984 P.2d 574 (Ct.App.1999); Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n, 44 Cal.3d 775 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 (1988); Veillon v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 608 So.2d 670 (La.Ct.App.1992); Schreffler v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 402 Pa.Super. 309 , 586 A.2d 983 (1991); and Vaughn v. | 1 | 1 |
James v. Smithgreen1 sentence1989Cf. James v. Smith, 537 So.2d 1074, 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (trial court should have ordered removal of fence and trailer). | 1 | 1 |
DADE CTY. v. Inversiones Rafamar, SAgreen1 sentence1987See Dade County v. Inversiones Rafamar, S.A., 360 So.2d 1130, 1133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Walker v. City of Birminghamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin
green
2 sentences1984The obvious purpose of the provision against discrimination is to protect the unit owner who has a child living with him at the time the amendment is passed." In the same vein the cases of White Egret Condominium, Inc. v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1979) and Star Lake North Commodore Association, Inc. v. Parker, 423 So.2d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) establish that a prohibition against children is not invalid and does not discriminate against those who buy an apartment and later have children. 1982That the Association has consistently performed its duty to enforce the mutual agreement entered into by all the unit owners, and has done so only prospectively, whereas the predecessor developer was lax in enforcing those rules, does not constitute selective and arbitrary conduct by the association in violation of the proscriptions of White Egret Condominium v. Franklin, 379 So.2d 346 (Fla. 1979). | 2 | 1982–1984 |
Johnson v. Davis
green
1 sentence2017Counsel for the Association also clearly represented to the trial court, and in the Association’s brief in this court, that the Association was not proceeding under a buyer’s cause of action for fraudulent nondisclosure as provided in Johnson v. Davis, 480 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 1985), since the Association was not a buyer, the individual unit owners were. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Veillon v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass'n
green
1 sentence2005See id. at 244 . [5] FIGA attacks the decision in Ramsey as an outlier, contravening the well-reasoned decisions in T & N PLC v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 800 F.Supp. 1259 (E.D.Pa.1992); Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund, 194 Ariz. 488 , 984 P.2d 574 (Ct.App.1999); Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n, 44 Cal.3d 775 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 (1988); Veillon v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 608 So.2d 670 (La.Ct.App.1992); Schreffler v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 402 Pa.Super. 309 , 586 A.2d 983 (1991); and Vaughn v. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Vaughn v. Vaughn
green
2 sentences2005See id. at 244 . [5] FIGA attacks the decision in Ramsey as an outlier, contravening the well-reasoned decisions in T & N PLC v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 800 F.Supp. 1259 (E.D.Pa.1992); Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund, 194 Ariz. 488 , 984 P.2d 574 (Ct.App.1999); Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n, 44 Cal.3d 775 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 (1988); Veillon v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 608 So.2d 670 (La.Ct.App.1992); Schreffler v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 402 Pa.Super. 309 , 586 A.2d 983 (1991); and Vaughn v. 2005See id. at 244 . [5] FIGA attacks the decision in Ramsey as an outlier, contravening the well-reasoned decisions in T & N PLC v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 800 F.Supp. 1259 (E.D.Pa.1992); Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund, 194 Ariz. 488 , 984 P.2d 574 (Ct.App.1999); Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n, 44 Cal.3d 775 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 (1988); Veillon v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 608 So.2d 670 (La.Ct.App.1992); Schreffler v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 402 Pa.Super. 309 , 586 A.2d 983 (1991); and Vaughn v. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Schreffler v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n
green
2 sentences2005See id. at 244 . [5] FIGA attacks the decision in Ramsey as an outlier, contravening the well-reasoned decisions in T & N PLC v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 800 F.Supp. 1259 (E.D.Pa.1992); Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund, 194 Ariz. 488 , 984 P.2d 574 (Ct.App.1999); Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n, 44 Cal.3d 775 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 (1988); Veillon v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 608 So.2d 670 (La.Ct.App.1992); Schreffler v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 402 Pa.Super. 309 , 586 A.2d 983 (1991); and Vaughn v. 2005See id. at 244 . [5] FIGA attacks the decision in Ramsey as an outlier, contravening the well-reasoned decisions in T & N PLC v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 800 F.Supp. 1259 (E.D.Pa.1992); Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund, 194 Ariz. 488 , 984 P.2d 574 (Ct.App.1999); Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n, 44 Cal.3d 775 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 (1988); Veillon v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 608 So.2d 670 (La.Ct.App.1992); Schreffler v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 402 Pa.Super. 309 , 586 A.2d 983 (1991); and Vaughn v. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund
green
2 sentences2005See id. at 244 . [5] FIGA attacks the decision in Ramsey as an outlier, contravening the well-reasoned decisions in T & N PLC v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 800 F.Supp. 1259 (E.D.Pa.1992); Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund, 194 Ariz. 488 , 984 P.2d 574 (Ct.App.1999); Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n, 44 Cal.3d 775 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 (1988); Veillon v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 608 So.2d 670 (La.Ct.App.1992); Schreffler v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 402 Pa.Super. 309 , 586 A.2d 983 (1991); and Vaughn v. 2005See id. at 244 . [5] FIGA attacks the decision in Ramsey as an outlier, contravening the well-reasoned decisions in T & N PLC v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 800 F.Supp. 1259 (E.D.Pa.1992); Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund, 194 Ariz. 488 , 984 P.2d 574 (Ct.App.1999); Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n, 44 Cal.3d 775 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 (1988); Veillon v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 608 So.2d 670 (La.Ct.App.1992); Schreffler v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 402 Pa.Super. 309 , 586 A.2d 983 (1991); and Vaughn v. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n
green
2 sentences2005See id. at 244 . [5] FIGA attacks the decision in Ramsey as an outlier, contravening the well-reasoned decisions in T & N PLC v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 800 F.Supp. 1259 (E.D.Pa.1992); Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund, 194 Ariz. 488 , 984 P.2d 574 (Ct.App.1999); Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n, 44 Cal.3d 775 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 (1988); Veillon v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 608 So.2d 670 (La.Ct.App.1992); Schreffler v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 402 Pa.Super. 309 , 586 A.2d 983 (1991); and Vaughn v. 2005See id. at 244 . [5] FIGA attacks the decision in Ramsey as an outlier, contravening the well-reasoned decisions in T & N PLC v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 800 F.Supp. 1259 (E.D.Pa.1992); Bills v. Arizona Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Fund, 194 Ariz. 488 , 984 P.2d 574 (Ct.App.1999); Isaacson v. California Insurance Guarantee Ass'n, 44 Cal.3d 775 , 244 Cal.Rptr. 655 , 750 P.2d 297 (1988); Veillon v. Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 608 So.2d 670 (La.Ct.App.1992); Schreffler v. Pennsylvania Insurance Guaranty Ass'n, 402 Pa.Super. 309 , 586 A.2d 983 (1991); and Vaughn v. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hernstadt v. Brickell Bay Club Condominium Ass'n
neutral
1 sentence1992Ass’n, Inc., 560 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2015 , 114 L.Ed.2d 102 (1991), we affirmed an order entered on our mandate which directed the Hernstadts to “cease and desist from using the roof structure which was the subject matter of this action ... and [to] ... restore said roof structure and ceiling to its previous state and condition at their own cost and expense.” On remand from the second appeal, the trial court entered an order on the Association’s motion granting a Writ of Possession and authorizing “Brickell Bay Club Condominium Association, Inc. [to | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Hernstadt v. Brickell Bay Club
green
1 sentence1992Ass’n, Inc., 560 So.2d 1227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2015 , 114 L.Ed.2d 102 (1991), we affirmed an order entered on our mandate which directed the Hernstadts to “cease and desist from using the roof structure which was the subject matter of this action ... and [to] ... restore said roof structure and ceiling to its previous state and condition at their own cost and expense.” On remand from the second appeal, the trial court entered an order on the Association’s motion granting a Writ of Possession and authorizing “Brickell Bay Club Condominium Association, Inc. [to | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Barnett & Klein Corp. v. President of Palm Beach green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Star Lake North Commodore Ass'n, Inc. v. Parker green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Carroll v. President & Commissioners of Princess Anne green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.