21 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsengreen2 sentences2026Dade Cnty. v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794, 794-95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (concluding that “trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss the case” where “plaintiff’s misrepresentations and omissions about her accident and medical history in interrogatories and in deposition went to the heart of her claim and subverted the integrity of the action”); Long v. Swofford, 805 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“A trial court has a duty and an obligation to dismiss a cause of action based upon fraud.”). 2 2008Dade County v. Martinsen, 736 So.2d 794, 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (holding that trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss case *1020 where plaintiff gave sworn false statements "about her accident and medical history" that "went to the heart of her claim and subverted the integrity of the action"). | 2 | 4 |
Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services v. Broward Countygreen2 sentences2021The First -5- District invoked that rationale in Florida’s seminal apex doctrine case, Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services v. Broward County, 810 So. 2d 1056, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). 2021The First District invoked that rationale in Florida’s seminal apex doctrine -5- case, Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services v. Broward County, 810 So. 2d 1056, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). | 2 | 2 |
Savino v. FLA. DRIVE IN THEATRE MANAGEMENTgreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., McKnight v. Evancheck, 907 So.2d 699, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“the trial court was within its discretion to determine that the misrepresentations made by [plaintiff] permeated the case”); Savino v. Fla. Drive In Theatre Mgmt., Inc., 697 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding no abuse of discretion in dismissing personal injury action for fraud, where plaintiff “lied about matters which went to the heart of his claim on damages”). 2011This court affirmed because the plaintiff “lied about matters which went to the heart of his claim on damages,” and “the trial court has the right and obligation to deter fraudulent claims from proceeding in court.” Id. | 1 | 4 |
ECHEVARRIA, McCALLA, RAYMER v. Colegreen2 sentences2026“It is the perceived necessity for candid and unrestrained communications in those proceedings, free of the threat of legal actions predicated upon those communications, that is at the heart of the rule.” Echevarria, McCalla, Raymer, Barrett & Frappier v. Cole, 950 So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla. 2007). 2026“Just as participants in litigation must be free to engage in unhindered communication, so too must those participants be free to use their best judgment in prosecuting or defending a lawsuit without fear of having to defend their actions in a subsequent civil action for misconduct.” Id. (quotation omitted). | 1 | 3 |
Long v. Swoffordgreen2 sentences2026Dade Cnty. v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d 794, 794-95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (concluding that “trial court abused its discretion in failing to dismiss the case” where “plaintiff’s misrepresentations and omissions about her accident and medical history in interrogatories and in deposition went to the heart of her claim and subverted the integrity of the action”); Long v. Swofford, 805 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (“A trial court has a duty and an obligation to dismiss a cause of action based upon fraud.”). 2 2016See also Austin v. Liquid Distrib., Inc., 928 So.2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (reaffirming that when a plaintiff makes misrepresentations and omissions about her accident and medical history in interrogatories and in deposition, those misrepresentations and omissions go to the heart of her claim and subvert the integrity of her action); Long v. Swofford, 805 So.2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (noting that the “trial court has a duty and an obligation to dismiss a cause of action based on. fraud” where plaintiff concealed her pre-existing back injury, during deposition by stating she- had not received m | 1 | 2 |
Austin v. Liquid Distributors, Inc.green1 sentence2016See also Austin v. Liquid Distrib., Inc., 928 So.2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (reaffirming that when a plaintiff makes misrepresentations and omissions about her accident and medical history in interrogatories and in deposition, those misrepresentations and omissions go to the heart of her claim and subvert the integrity of her action); Long v. Swofford, 805 So.2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (noting that the “trial court has a duty and an obligation to dismiss a cause of action based on. fraud” where plaintiff concealed her pre-existing back injury, during deposition by stating she- had not received m | 1 | 1 |
McKnight v. Evancheckgreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., McKnight v. Evancheck, 907 So.2d 699, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (“the trial court was within its discretion to determine that the misrepresentations made by [plaintiff] permeated the case”); Savino v. Fla. Drive In Theatre Mgmt., Inc., 697 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (finding no abuse of discretion in dismissing personal injury action for fraud, where plaintiff “lied about matters which went to the heart of his claim on damages”). | 1 | 1 |
Hogge v. SS YORKMARgreen1 sentence2011For example, Dr. Greenberg does not contend that Dr. Harris lacked knowledge of the symptoms of an ectopic pregnancy; rather, Dr. Green-berg opines that Dr. Harris failed to follow standard diagnostic procedure by ruling out the possibility that Ms. Flueras was suffering from an ectopic pregnancy. 16 See Hogge, 434 F.Supp. at 736 (incompetent pilot lacked knowledge of customary law of particular waterway). | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Robinson v. State, 561 So.2d 419 , 421 n. 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (noting that court's denial of continuance to allow defense to obtain witness who failed to honor subpoena "virtually eliminated the defendant's option of not testifying"). | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. Burkegreen1 sentence2006"A system that depends on an adversary's ability to uncover falsehoods is doomed to failure, which is why this kind of conduct must be discouraged in the strongest possible way." Cox v. Burke, 706 So.2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Shirley v. Shirleygreen1 sentence1972See also Shirley v. Shirley, 100 So.2d 450 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1958).” As we see it, the heart of the doctrine of estoppel by judgment is found in the following language quoted above from the Avant decision: “. . . estoppel by judgment would be applied to prevent a party from re-litigating questions common to two causes of action when those questions were actually decided in the first.” Probably the best method of determining what “questions were actually decided” in the first action is to examine the judgment in the first case. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Howard v. State
green
2 sentences2020In support of our conclusion, we rely on three other cases, Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), Orvis v. Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co., 861 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and Howard v. State, 950 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). 2019In support of our conclusion, we rely on three other cases, Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), Orvis v. Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co., 861 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and Howard v. State, 950 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). | 2 | 2019–2020 |
Orvis v. Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co.
neutral
2 sentences2020In support of our conclusion, we rely on three other cases, Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), Orvis v. Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co., 861 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and Howard v. State, 950 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). 2019In support of our conclusion, we rely on three other cases, Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), Orvis v. Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co., 861 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and Howard v. State, 950 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). | 2 | 2019–2020 |
Fischman v. Suen
green
2 sentences2020In support of our conclusion, we rely on three other cases, Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), Orvis v. Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co., 861 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and Howard v. State, 950 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). 2019In support of our conclusion, we rely on three other cases, Fischman v. Suen, 672 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), Orvis v. Caulkins Indiantown Citrus Co., 861 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), and Howard v. State, 950 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). | 2 | 2019–2020 |
Gary Czajkowski v. State of Florida
red
1 sentence2022The fact of the matter is that while claim III of the postconviction motion did not discuss Lawrence and argued that Covington should be entitled to relief under Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), despite waiving a penalty phase jury, the title of it states, “The proceedings in Mr. Covington’s case were inadequate to determine whether his case was one of the most aggravated and least mitigated,” which is the very heart of this claim in the Petition. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Leo's Gulf Liquors v. Lakhani
green
1 sentence2016See also Austin v. Liquid Distrib., Inc., 928 So.2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (reaffirming that when a plaintiff makes misrepresentations and omissions about her accident and medical history in interrogatories and in deposition, those misrepresentations and omissions go to the heart of her claim and subvert the integrity of her action); Long v. Swofford, 805 So.2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (noting that the “trial court has a duty and an obligation to dismiss a cause of action based on. fraud” where plaintiff concealed her pre-existing back injury, during deposition by stating she- had not received m | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Morgan v. Campbell
green
1 sentence2008Like the misrepresentations made by the plaintiff in Morgan , Mr. Ramey's misrepresentations concerning his prior medical treatment were "directly related to the central issue in the case." Morgan, 816 So.2d at 253 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Hanono v. Murphy
green
1 sentence2004Nor was this a case like Hanono v. Murphy, 723 So.2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), where a party who had actually been convicted of perjury in the prosecution of a civil action nevertheless claimed the right to continue to maintain it. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Kent v. State
green
1 sentence2000In Kent v. State, 704 So.2d 121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997), also cited by appellant, testimony concerning conversations in which undercover officers sought to purchase cocaine from the defendant and the defendant refused to sell cocaine to them was ruled admissible as either nonhearsay, since it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, or as a state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule under section 90.803(3). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hansman v. State
green
1 sentence2000This evidence, we concluded, went to "the heart of the defense." Id. at 1217 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Gaiter v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1998Gaiter v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 376 So.2d 912 (Fla.App.3d DCA 1979). [5] The following excerpts of Murphy's "explanations" at trial give the flavor of his responses: Q. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.