Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1948–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Water & Land Conservationgreen2 sentences2020Conditions, 181 So. 3d 471, 476 (Fla. 2015) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Land & Water Conservation, 123 So. 3d 47, 50 (Fla. 2013)). 2015Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Water & Land Conservation-Dedicates Funds to Acquire & Restore Fla. Conservation & Recreation Lands, 123 So.3d 47, 50 (Fla.2013). | 3 | 3 |
Canto v. JB Ivey and Co.green2 sentences2013Ivy Ivey & Co., 595 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), two children were detained by a merchant who suspected them of shoplifting; citing McCarson and the Restatement (2d) of Torts, the court found “no evidence in the record suggesting that the conduct of either employee even approached the limits of this privilege.” See also Mallock v. S. Mem’l Park, Inc., 561 So.2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). 2010Ivey & Co., 595 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), two children were detained by a merchant who suspected them of shoplifting; citing McCarson and the Restatement (2d) of Torts, the court found “no evidence in the record suggesting that the conduct of ei *761 ther employee even approached the limits of this privilege.” See also Mallock v. S. Mem’l Park, Inc., 561 So.2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). | 3 | 3 |
Jano v. Stategreen2 sentences1988Jano v. State, 510 So.2d at 619 . 1987See Jano v. State, 510 So.2d 615 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). | 1 | 2 |
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Use of Marijuana for Debilitating Medical Conditionsgreen1 sentence2020Conditions, 181 So. 3d 471, 476 (Fla. 2015) (quoting Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Land & Water Conservation, 123 So. 3d 47, 50 (Fla. 2013)). | 1 | 1 |
Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station WQBAgreen1 sentence2019Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 645 (Fla. 1999); State v. Pitts, 936 So. 2d 1111, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (explaining that appellate courts should affirm “even if the specific basis for affirmance has not been articulated by the appellee”). 14 But what does it mean that a fundamental error is “obvious?” The limits of this principle are illustrated by Berben v. State, 268 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), cited with approval by Judge Wolf. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pittsgreen1 sentence2019Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 645 (Fla. 1999); State v. Pitts, 936 So. 2d 1111, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (explaining that appellate courts should affirm “even if the specific basis for affirmance has not been articulated by the appellee”). 14 But what does it mean that a fundamental error is “obvious?” The limits of this principle are illustrated by Berben v. State, 268 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), cited with approval by Judge Wolf. | 1 | 1 |
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re: Protect People, Especially Youth, From Addiction, Disease, & Other Health Hazards of Using Tobaccogreen1 sentence2013Advisory Op. to the Att’y Gen. re Protect People, Especially Youth, from Addiction, Disease & Other Health Hazards of Using Tobacco, 926 So.2d 1186, 1190 (Fla.2006). | 1 | 1 |
Casey v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., Casey v. State, 788 So.2d 1121, 1122 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Keller v. Belchergreen1 sentence2010As stated in Byers v. Callahan, 848 So.2d 1180, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), “[t]he ‘clerical mistakes’ referred to by Rule 1.540(a) are only ‘errors or mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission, and not errors or mistakes in the substance of what is decided by the judgment or order.’ Town of Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So.2d 1162, 1164 (Fla.1979) (quoting Keller v. Bel cher, 256 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)).” In a family law case, the length of time that an obligation is to be paid is an error that affects the substance of a judgment; not a “clerical” mistake that can be correcte | 1 | 1 |
Town of Hialeah Gardens v. Hendrygreen1 sentence2010As stated in Byers v. Callahan, 848 So.2d 1180, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), “[t]he ‘clerical mistakes’ referred to by Rule 1.540(a) are only ‘errors or mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission, and not errors or mistakes in the substance of what is decided by the judgment or order.’ Town of Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So.2d 1162, 1164 (Fla.1979) (quoting Keller v. Bel cher, 256 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)).” In a family law case, the length of time that an obligation is to be paid is an error that affects the substance of a judgment; not a “clerical” mistake that can be correcte | 1 | 1 |
Bolton v. Boltongreen1 sentence2010In Malone v. Percival, 875 So.2d 1286, 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), the second district described the limits of rule 1.540(a) to correct errors other then “clerical mistakes”: “A trial court may correct a clerical error ‘at any time on its own initiative’ pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a), but judicial errors, which include errors that affect the substance of a judgment, must be corrected within ten days pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530[ (g) ], or by appellate review.” Bolton v. Bolton, 787 So.2d 237, 238-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Byers v. Callahangreen1 sentence2010As stated in Byers v. Callahan, 848 So.2d 1180, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), “[t]he ‘clerical mistakes’ referred to by Rule 1.540(a) are only ‘errors or mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission, and not errors or mistakes in the substance of what is decided by the judgment or order.’ Town of Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So.2d 1162, 1164 (Fla.1979) (quoting Keller v. Bel cher, 256 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)).” In a family law case, the length of time that an obligation is to be paid is an error that affects the substance of a judgment; not a “clerical” mistake that can be correcte | 1 | 1 |
Malone v. Percivalgreen1 sentence2010In Malone v. Percival, 875 So.2d 1286, 1288 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), the second district described the limits of rule 1.540(a) to correct errors other then “clerical mistakes”: “A trial court may correct a clerical error ‘at any time on its own initiative’ pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a), but judicial errors, which include errors that affect the substance of a judgment, must be corrected within ten days pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530[ (g) ], or by appellate review.” Bolton v. Bolton, 787 So.2d 237, 238-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re Florida Minimum Wage Amendmentgreen2 sentences2008The Court will not address the merits or wisdom of the proposed amendment and “must act with extreme care, caution, and restraint before it removes a constitutional amendment from the vote of the people.” Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla. Minimum Wage Amendment, 880 So.2d 636, 639 (Fla.2004) (quoting Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 156 (Fla.1982)). 2008The Court will not address the merits or wisdom of the proposed amendment and "must act with extreme care, caution, and restraint before it removes a constitutional amendment from the vote of the people." Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Fla. Minimum Wage Amendment, 880 So.2d 636, 639 (Fla.2004) (quoting Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 156 (Fla.1982)). | 1 | 1 |
Askew v. Firestonegreen2 sentences2008The Court will not address the merits or wisdom of the proposed amendment and “must act with extreme care, caution, and restraint before it removes a constitutional amendment from the vote of the people.” Advisory Op. to Att’y Gen. re Fla. Minimum Wage Amendment, 880 So.2d 636, 639 (Fla.2004) (quoting Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 156 (Fla.1982)). 2008The Court will not address the merits or wisdom of the proposed amendment and "must act with extreme care, caution, and restraint before it removes a constitutional amendment from the vote of the people." Advisory Op. to Att'y Gen. re Fla. Minimum Wage Amendment, 880 So.2d 636, 639 (Fla.2004) (quoting Askew v. Firestone, 421 So.2d 151, 156 (Fla.1982)). | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Diemgreen1 sentence1978See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Diem, 358 So.2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). [6] Thus, we find that the $15,000 liability coverage of the tort-feasor which was tendered to the insured reduced what the appellant could receive from his uninsured motorist carrier by that amount. | 1 | 1 |
Lawson v. Stategreen1 sentence1976See Lawson v. State, Fla.App.3d 1974, 304 So.2d 522 , and cases cited therein. | 1 | 1 |
Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Baumgartnergreen2 sentences1948Compare Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Baumgartner, 99 Fla. 987 , 128 So. 241 . 1948Compare Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. Baumgartner, 99 Fla. 987 , 128 So. 241 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mallock v. Southern Memorial Park, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Ivy Ivey & Co., 595 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), two children were detained by a merchant who suspected them of shoplifting; citing McCarson and the Restatement (2d) of Torts, the court found “no evidence in the record suggesting that the conduct of either employee even approached the limits of this privilege.” See also Mallock v. S. Mem’l Park, Inc., 561 So.2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). 2010Ivey & Co., 595 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), two children were detained by a merchant who suspected them of shoplifting; citing McCarson and the Restatement (2d) of Torts, the court found “no evidence in the record suggesting that the conduct of ei *761 ther employee even approached the limits of this privilege.” See also Mallock v. S. Mem’l Park, Inc., 561 So.2d 330 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). | 3 | 1994–2013 |
Jones v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Rhode Island
green
2 sentences1985In Jones, 368 So.2d at 1290 , the court stated: [WJhere the benefits under the tort-fea-sor’s policy have been partially exhausted by payment of claims to persons other than the insured, then the insured is entitled to “excess over” the amount received from the tort-feasor’s carrier up to the limits of the claim or the policy, whichever is less. 1985In Jones, 368 So.2d at 1290 , the court stated: [W]here the benefits under the tort-feasor's policy have been partially exhausted by payment of claims to persons other than the insured, then the insured is entitled to "excess over" the amount received from the tort-feasor's carrier up to the limits of the claim or the policy, whichever is less. *162 Applying this formula to the case at bar, we find that the sum available to Smith from Daniels' policy is zero and that Smith is therefore entitled to compensation from his own carrier up to the policy limit of $55,000.00. | 2 | 1985–1985 |
Batizi v. State
green
1 sentence2019Bd. v. Radio Station WQBA, 731 So. 2d 638, 645 (Fla. 1999); State v. Pitts, 936 So. 2d 1111, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (explaining that appellate courts should affirm “even if the specific basis for affirmance has not been articulated by the appellee”). 14 But what does it mean that a fundamental error is “obvious?” The limits of this principle are illustrated by Berben v. State, 268 So. 3d 235 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019), cited with approval by Judge Wolf. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences1990As the United States Supreme Court said in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), in discussing the "plain view" exception to the warrant requirement, The limits on the doctrine are implicit in the statement of its rationale. 1990As the United States Supreme Court said in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971), in discussing the "plain view" exception to the warrant requirement, The limits on the doctrine are implicit in the statement of its rationale. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In re Chapman
green
2 sentences1988The New Hampshire Court commented that it “is obligated to interpret the limits on bar activities so as to preclude the first amendment infringement that would result if the Association were to take positions on issues outside the scope of those responsibilities that justify compelling lawyers to belong to it.” Id. at 31 , 509 A.2d at 758 . 1988The New Hampshire Court commented that it “is obligated to interpret the limits on bar activities so as to preclude the first amendment infringement that would result if the Association were to take positions on issues outside the scope of those responsibilities that justify compelling lawyers to belong to it.” Id. at 31 , 509 A.2d at 758 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Hurley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
neutral
1 sentence1985State Farm argues that this case should be controlled by our decision in Hurley v. State Farm Automobile Insurance Co., 438 So.2d 1002 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
McCain v. Andrews
green
2 sentences1959To emphasize that its decision should not be construed to include a tort of the character involved by the case on appeal, the Supreme Court in the Hargrove case further defined the limits of the rule there established by saying: "* * * we here merely hold that when an individual suffers a direct, personal injury proximately caused by the negligence of a municipal employee while acting within the scope of his employment, the injured individual is entitled to redress for the wrong done." Aside from the strict limitation imposed by the above quotation, it is important to note that cases establish 1959To emphasize that its decision should not be construed to include a tort of the character involved by the case on appeal, the Supreme Court in the Hargrove case further defined the limits of the rule there established by saying: "* * * we here merely hold that when an individual suffers a direct, personal injury proximately caused by the negligence of a municipal employee while acting within the scope of his employment, the injured individual is entitled to redress for the wrong done." Aside from the strict limitation imposed by the above quotation, it is important to note that cases establish | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.