23 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pevsner v. Frederickgreen2 sentences2015Id. at 263-64 (internal footnotes and citations omitted). 2015Id. at 263-64 (internal footnotes and citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Rodríguezgreen2 sentences2012“The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.” Brady v. Times-Mirror Co., 106 Cal. 56 , 39 P. 209, 210 [(Cal.1895) ]. 2005In this situation, we do not think Section 46.02 should be applied to give to a plaintiff the right to choose the forum in which to bring his suit. ‘The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.’ Brady v. Times-Mirror Co., 106 Cal. 56 , 39 P. 209, 210 . | 1 | 4 |
Enfinger v. Baxleygreen2 sentences2012Enfinger, 96 So.2d at 540. 1958The defendant relies mainly on the following statement of law as laid down by the Supreme Court of Florida in the case of Enfinger v. Baxley, 96 So.2d 538 , 540: “The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.” He argues that the plaintiff has not brought himself within the terms of the exception as outlined above and has failed to clearly establish his right to have the action tried in Polk County, basing | 1 | 2 |
State v. Town of Sweetwatergreen1 sentence2026Levin merely recognizes and properly applies the terms of the rule. 2 See, e.g., State v. Town of Sweetwater, 112 So. 2d 852, 854 (Fla. 1959) (“It is an elemental principle of appellate procedure that every judgment, order or decree of a trial court brought up for review is clothed with the presumption of correctness and that the burden is upon the appellant in all of such proceedings to make error clearly appear.”). 9 If postconviction appellants wish to present whatever part of the trial record they believe supports relief, regardless of whether it is an authorized part of the record as set | 1 | 1 |
Sun Trust Bank v. Sun International Hotels, Ltd.green1 sentence2013Sun Trust Bank v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 184 F.Supp.2d 1246, 1259 (S.D.Fla.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. McLeodgreen1 sentence2009The trial court also erred when it rescinded the arbitration agreement without Laquer’s consent. “[Ojnce a party has waived the right to arbitration ..., the party may not reclaim the arbitration right without the consent of his or her adversary.” Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. McLeod, 15 So.3d 682, 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Rivera v. Mooregreen1 sentence2006See Rivera v. Moore, 825 So.2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (mandamus will lie to compel an administrative agency to follow its own rules). | 1 | 1 |
Grip Development, Inc. v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate, Inc.green1 sentence2001Compare Grip, 788 So.2d at 262 . | 1 | 1 |
Cerrito v. Kovitchgreen1 sentence1999See Cerrito v. Kovitch, 406 So.2d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); MSQ Properties v. HRS, 626 So.2d 292, 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Msq Properties v. Florida Dhrsgreen1 sentence1999See Cerrito v. Kovitch, 406 So.2d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); MSQ Properties v. HRS, 626 So.2d 292, 293 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodriquezgreen1 sentence1999See generally State v. Rodriquez, 365 So.2d 157 (Fla.1978). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Battlegreen1 sentence1995In re Eisenberg, 466 So.2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (probate rules); State v. Battle, 302 So.2d 782, 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (rules of criminal procedure). | 1 | 1 |
In re Estate of Eisenberggreen1 sentence1995In re Eisenberg, 466 So.2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (probate rules); State v. Battle, 302 So.2d 782, 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (rules of criminal procedure). | 1 | 1 |
Tascano v. Stategreen1 sentence1982The one-year period commenced on the date that the information was filed, according to the terms of the rule. 2 By its terms, the rule is mandatory upon the State, since it requires that an affected person “shall without demand be brought to trial within one year....” Compare Tascano v. State, 393 So.2d 540, 541 (Fla.1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brady v. Times-Mirror Co.
green
2 sentences2012“The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.” Brady v. Times-Mirror Co., 106 Cal. 56 , 39 P. 209, 210 [(Cal.1895) ]. 2005In this situation, we do not think Section 46.02 should be applied to give to a plaintiff the right to choose the forum in which to bring his suit. ‘The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.’ Brady v. Times-Mirror Co., 106 Cal. 56 , 39 P. 209, 210 . | 5 | 1957–2012 |
Meeks v. State
green
2 sentences1982Although we recognize that under both the terms of rule 3.850 and Meeks v. State, 382 So.2d 673 (Fla.1980), the evidentiary hearing can only be denied if it is conclusively shown that appellant’s motion lacks merit, we conclude that when the first three criteria of Knight for establishing ineffective counsel are placed alongside of appellant’s claims, those claims are shown conclusively to be without merit so as to obviate the need for an evidentiary hearing. 1981Although we recognize that under both the terms of rule 3.850 and Meeks v. State, 382 So.2d 673 (Fla.1980), the evidentiary hearing can only be denied if it is conclusively shown that appellant’s motion lacks merit, we conclude that when the first three criteria of Knight for establishing ineffective counsel are placed alongside of appellant’s claims, those claims are shown conclusively to be without merit so as to obviate the need for an evidentiary hearing. | 3 | 1981–1982 |
State v. Nelson
green
1 sentence2011Any other outcome would “ignore the terms of the rule and the intent of the 1984 amendment to allow the State an opportunity to remedy a mistake through the recapture period.” Id. at 580 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Satellite Television Engineering, Inc. v. Department of General Services
neutral
1 sentence1988This question must be answered in the affirmative in view of our recent decision in Satellite Television Engineering Inc., v. Department of General Services, 522 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Mesarosh v. United States
green
2 sentences1977The failure of the trial judge to grant appellants' motion for a new trial under these circumstances runs squarely afoul of Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1 , 77 S.Ct. 1 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1 (1956). 1977The failure of the trial judge to grant appellants' motion for a new trial under these circumstances runs squarely afoul of Mesarosh v. United States, 352 U.S. 1 , 77 S.Ct. 1 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1 (1956). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Commercial Carrier Corporation v. Mercer
green
1 sentence1975In this situation, we do not think Section 46.02 should be applied to give to a plaintiff the right to choose the forum in which to bring his suit. `The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.' Brady v. Times-Mirror Co., 106 Cal. 56 , 39 P. 209, 210 ." (e.s.) The same rationale was employed in Commercial Carrier Corporation v. Mercer, 226 So.2d 270 (2nd DCAFla. 1969), whose facts are nearly on all fours | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.