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 1969–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Palmer v. Santa Fe Healthcare Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2000In Palmer v. Santa Fe Healthcare Systems, Inc., 582 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), a case also involving an employment contract, this court stated, "A promise as to future conduct may serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud if it is made without any intention of performing, or with a positive intention not to perform." Id. at 1236 . 2000In Palmer v. Santa Fe Healthcare Systems, Inc., 582 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), a case also involving an employment contract, this court stated, "A promise as to future conduct may serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud if it is made without any intention of performing, or with a positive intention not to perform." Id. at 1236 . | 1 | 4 |
Smith v. Marylandred2 sentences1985Justice Rehnquist’s opinion in Rakas has been reaffirmed by later decisions of the Court, see Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 , 100 S.Ct. 2556 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 , 99 S.Ct. 2577 , 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979), and there is nothing in other opinions of the United States Supreme Court, relating to searches of open fields, which requires a different result than that which we have reached. 1985Justice Rehnquist’s opinion in Rakas has been reaffirmed by later decisions of the Court, see Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 , 100 S.Ct. 2556 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 , 99 S.Ct. 2577 , 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979), and there is nothing in other opinions of the United States Supreme Court, relating to searches of open fields, which requires a different result than that which we have reached. | 1 | 2 |
Foster v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Foster, 778 So.2d at 916 . | 1 | 1 |
Home Seekers Realty Co. v. Meneargreen2 sentences2010However, a promise as to future conduct may serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud if such promise is made without any intention of performing or with the positive intention not to perform." *624 27 Fla. Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 27 (2010) (footnotes omitted); see Home Seekers' Realty Co. v. Menear, 102 Fla. 7 , 135 So. 402, 402-03 (1931); Weldon v. Wyche, 863 So.2d 395 , 396 n. * (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 521 (Fl 2010However, a promise as to future conduct may serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud if such promise is made without any intention of performing or with the positive intention not to perform." *624 27 Fla. Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 27 (2010) (footnotes omitted); see Home Seekers' Realty Co. v. Menear, 102 Fla. 7 , 135 So. 402, 402-03 (1931); Weldon v. Wyche, 863 So.2d 395 , 396 n. * (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 521 (Fl | 1 | 1 |
Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Parkgreen2 sentences2010However, a promise as to future conduct may serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud if such promise is made without any intention of performing or with the positive intention not to perform." *624 27 Fla. Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 27 (2010) (footnotes omitted); see Home Seekers' Realty Co. v. Menear, 102 Fla. 7 , 135 So. 402, 402-03 (1931); Weldon v. Wyche, 863 So.2d 395 , 396 n. * (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 521 (Fl 2010However, a promise as to future conduct may serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud if such promise is made without any intention of performing or with the positive intention not to perform.” 27 Fla. Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 27 (2010) (footnotes omitted); see Home Seekers’ Realty Co. v. Menear, 102 Fla. 7 , 135 So. 402, 402-03 (1931); Weldon v. Wyche, 863 So.2d 395 , 396 n. * (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 521 (Fla. 3d | 1 | 1 |
Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc.green2 sentences2010However, a promise as to future conduct may serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud if such promise is made without any intention of performing or with the positive intention not to perform." *624 27 Fla. Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 27 (2010) (footnotes omitted); see Home Seekers' Realty Co. v. Menear, 102 Fla. 7 , 135 So. 402, 402-03 (1931); Weldon v. Wyche, 863 So.2d 395 , 396 n. * (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 521 (Fl 2010However, a promise as to future conduct may serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud if such promise is made without any intention of performing or with the positive intention not to perform.” 27 Fla. Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 27 (2010) (footnotes omitted); see Home Seekers’ Realty Co. v. Menear, 102 Fla. 7 , 135 So. 402, 402-03 (1931); Weldon v. Wyche, 863 So.2d 395 , 396 n. * (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 521 (Fla. 3d | 1 | 1 |
Vance v. IND. HAMMOCK HUNT & RIDING CLUB, LTD.green2 sentences2010However, a promise as to future conduct may serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud if such promise is made without any intention of performing or with the positive intention not to perform." *624 27 Fla. Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 27 (2010) (footnotes omitted); see Home Seekers' Realty Co. v. Menear, 102 Fla. 7 , 135 So. 402, 402-03 (1931); Weldon v. Wyche, 863 So.2d 395 , 396 n. * (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 521 (Fl 2010However, a promise as to future conduct may serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud if such promise is made without any intention of performing or with the positive intention not to perform.” 27 Fla. Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 27 (2010) (footnotes omitted); see Home Seekers’ Realty Co. v. Menear, 102 Fla. 7 , 135 So. 402, 402-03 (1931); Weldon v. Wyche, 863 So.2d 395 , 396 n. * (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 521 (Fla. 3d | 1 | 1 |
Mejia v. Jurichgreen2 sentences2010However, a promise as to future conduct may serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud if such promise is made without any intention of performing or with the positive intention not to perform." *624 27 Fla. Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 27 (2010) (footnotes omitted); see Home Seekers' Realty Co. v. Menear, 102 Fla. 7 , 135 So. 402, 402-03 (1931); Weldon v. Wyche, 863 So.2d 395 , 396 n. * (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 521 (Fl 2010However, a promise as to future conduct may serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud if such promise is made without any intention of performing or with the positive intention not to perform.” 27 Fla. Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 27 (2010) (footnotes omitted); see Home Seekers’ Realty Co. v. Menear, 102 Fla. 7 , 135 So. 402, 402-03 (1931); Weldon v. Wyche, 863 So.2d 395 , 396 n. * (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 521 (Fla. 3d | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Phillips v. State, 621 So.2d 734 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (holding nurse's testimony insufficient to lay proper predicate for admission of blood alcohol content where nurse testified records were kept in the normal course of business, but nurse did not draw blood and was not custodian of records). | 1 | 1 |
Alexander/Davis Properties, Inc. v. Grahamgreen1 sentence1999Alexander/Davis Properties, Inc. v. Graham, 397 So.2d 699, 706, 707-08 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Quinn v. Stategreen1 sentence1998“If the initial supplier of information is not acting within the course of the business, the information cannot qualify for admission.” Quinn v. State, 662 So.2d 947, 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Perry v. Cosgrovegreen1 sentence1991See Perry v. Cosgrove, 464 So.2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hamlen v. Fairchild Industries, Inc., 413 So.2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). | 1 | 1 |
Sleight v. Sun and Surf Realty, Inc.green1 sentence1991See Sleight v. Sun and Surf Realty, Inc., 410 So.2d 998 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bay Club, Inc. v. BRICKELL BAY CLUB
green
1 sentence2016Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the basis that the contract was insufficient to “form a predicate for a claim of specific performance.” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Weldon v. Wyche
neutral
2 sentences2010However, a promise as to future conduct may serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud if such promise is made without any intention of performing or with the positive intention not to perform." *624 27 Fla. Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 27 (2010) (footnotes omitted); see Home Seekers' Realty Co. v. Menear, 102 Fla. 7 , 135 So. 402, 402-03 (1931); Weldon v. Wyche, 863 So.2d 395 , 396 n. * (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 521 (Fl 2010However, a promise as to future conduct may serve as a predicate for a claim of fraud if such promise is made without any intention of performing or with the positive intention not to perform.” 27 Fla. Jur.2d Fraud and Deceit § 27 (2010) (footnotes omitted); see Home Seekers’ Realty Co. v. Menear, 102 Fla. 7 , 135 So. 402, 402-03 (1931); Weldon v. Wyche, 863 So.2d 395 , 396 n. * (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); Mejia v. Jurich, 781 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park, Inc., 648 So.2d 168, 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Capital Bank v. MVB, Inc., 644 So.2d 515, 521 (Fla. 3d | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Rinaldi v. Aaron
green
1 sentence2003In Rinaldi v. Aaron, 314 So.2d 762 (Fla. 1975), the court was asked to answer a certified question inquiring whether, as a predicate for a claim for punitive damages, plaintiff is required to introduce evidence of defendant's financial worth and ability to pay such damages in order for the issue to be considered by the jury. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Hill v. State
green
1 sentence1997It was enough for Hill to be alerted generally to the difficulties of navigating the legal system, and in this case the inquiry went beyond the minimum requirements to warn Hill of the particular difficulty of laying a predicate for a defense." [e.o.] 688 So.2d at 905 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Bowen
green
1 sentence1997More recently, in State v. Bowen, 698 So.2d 248 (Fla.1997), the court held that: "once a court determines that a competent defendant of his or her own free will has `knowingly and intelligently' waived the right to counsel, the dictates of Faretta are satisfied, the inquiry is over, and the defendant may proceed unrepresented. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Lavado v. State
green
1 sentence1996We conclude that this issue is controlled by the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Lavado v. State, 492 So.2d 1322 (Fla.1986), and that appellant’s conviction must therefore be reversed. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Marie McDaniel v. Otis R. Bowen , Secretary of Health and Human Services
green
1 sentence1992Walker v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 533 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ( Walker I); cf. McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026 (11th Cir.1986). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Walker v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERVS., DIST. I, ESCAMBIA CTY.
green
1 sentence1992Walker v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 533 So.2d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) ( Walker I); cf. McDaniel v. Bowen, 800 F.2d 1026 (11th Cir.1986). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Hamlen v. Fairchild Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence1991See Perry v. Cosgrove, 464 So.2d 664 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Hamlen v. Fairchild Industries, Inc., 413 So.2d 800 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Thompson v. Thompson
green
1 sentence1991The Wife's claim is a 12 1/2% interest in the professional association and the Wife relies upon the Florida Supreme Court decision rendered in the case of Thompson v. Thompson, 576 So.2d 267 (1991). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Rawlings v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences1985Justice Rehnquist’s opinion in Rakas has been reaffirmed by later decisions of the Court, see Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 , 100 S.Ct. 2556 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 , 99 S.Ct. 2577 , 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979), and there is nothing in other opinions of the United States Supreme Court, relating to searches of open fields, which requires a different result than that which we have reached. 1985Justice Rehnquist’s opinion in Rakas has been reaffirmed by later decisions of the Court, see Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 , 100 S.Ct. 2556 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 , 99 S.Ct. 2577 , 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979), and there is nothing in other opinions of the United States Supreme Court, relating to searches of open fields, which requires a different result than that which we have reached. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Drury v. Harding
green
2 sentences1984The First DCA in Drury v. Harding, supra, ruled that the law in effect at the time of the trial is the law that governs the admissibility of evidence and may be applied retrospectively to the defendant, the Court stated at page 361: “The rules and regulations adopted by HRS on December 16, 1982 are procedural and therefore they may be applied retrospectively to the petitioners in this case .... the rules were designed to permit the introduction of test results into evidence without the requirement of expert testimony to lay a predicate for the test’s reliability. 1984State v. Bender, supra. Because the purpose of the rules is to insure that only reliable evidence is placed before a jury, the law in effect at the time of the trial is the law that governs the admissibility of the evidence.” The Fifth DCA in State v. Fardelman, 453 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) concurred in the decision of the Drury case, supra when it said: “This case is like Drury v. Harding, 443 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) and we are in agreement with the Drury ruling. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Fardelman
green
1 sentence1984State v. Bender, supra. Because the purpose of the rules is to insure that only reliable evidence is placed before a jury, the law in effect at the time of the trial is the law that governs the admissibility of the evidence.” The Fifth DCA in State v. Fardelman, 453 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) concurred in the decision of the Drury case, supra when it said: “This case is like Drury v. Harding, 443 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) and we are in agreement with the Drury ruling. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Bender
green
1 sentence1983State v. Bender, supra. Because the purpose of the rules is to ensure that only reliable evidence is placed before a jury, the law in effect at the time of the trial is the law that governs the admissibility of the evidence. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Shapiro v. State
green
1 sentence1981Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 , 99 S.Ct. 2577 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 220 (1979); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); Shapiro v. State, 390 So.2d 344 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 101 S.Ct. 1519 , 67 L.Ed.2d 818 (1980). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Rakas v. Illinois green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
O'Biso v. Board of Education
green
1 sentence1981Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 , 99 S.Ct. 2577 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 220 (1979); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); Shapiro v. State, 390 So.2d 344 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 101 S.Ct. 1519 , 67 L.Ed.2d 818 (1980). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Franks v. Louisiana
green
1 sentence1981Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 , 99 S.Ct. 2577 , 61 L.Ed.2d at 220 (1979); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); Shapiro v. State, 390 So.2d 344 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 101 S.Ct. 1519 , 67 L.Ed.2d 818 (1980). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Alford v. State green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.