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.
20 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1917–1977 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 |
|---|---|---|
McDonald v. Stategreen2 sentences1977See McDonald v. State, 321 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). 1977See McDonald v. State, 321 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). | 2 | 2 |
Farrington v. Harrisongreen2 sentences1938See Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769 , 116 So. 497 . 1938See Farrington v. Harrison, 95 Fla. 769 , 116 So. 497 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scott v. Kirtley
green
2 sentences1958In holding that the attorneys were entitled to a lien on the property, the court stated: "(1) We are of the opinion that no reversible error has been shown and that the decree of the chancellor here appealed from must be affirmed upon the authority of the case of Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637 , 152 So. 721, 722 , 93 A.L.R. 661 , which case settled in favor of the appellees the controlling question raised by this appeal. * *" The decision in the Knabb case was based upon the decision of the court, Scott v. Kirtley, supra. Both of these cases come under the heading of special agreement cases an 1958In holding that the attorneys were entitled to a lien on the property, the court stated: "(1) We are of the opinion that no reversible error has been shown and that the decree of the chancellor here appealed from must be affirmed upon the authority of the case of Scott v. Kirtley, 113 Fla. 637 , 152 So. 721, 722 , 93 A.L.R. 661 , which case settled in favor of the appellees the controlling question raised by this appeal. * *" The decision in the Knabb case was based upon the decision of the court, Scott v. Kirtley, supra. Both of these cases come under the heading of special agreement cases an | 2 | 1939–1958 |
Roberts v. State
green
1 sentence1977We have carefully considered and reject the retroactive application of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Florida in Roberts v. State, 335 So.2d 285 (Fla.1976), adopting the so called “Lyles” rule. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Estevez v. State
green
1 sentence1975Cf. Estevez v. State, Supreme Court of Florida, 290 So.2d 138 , opinion filed February 26, 1974. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
O'SULLIVAN v. City of Deerfield Beach
green
1 sentence1975Accordingly, the order under review is affirmed and the cause remanded to the trial court with the respectful direction to dismiss the proceedings in accordance with O’Sullivan v. City of Deerfield Beach, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 33 , and to award attorney fees and costs to the County as may be deemed appropriate. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Cantor v. Cantor
green
1 sentence1975Cf. Lee v. Lee, Fla.App.1975, 309 So.2d 26 ; Cantor v. Cantor, Fla.App.1975, 306 So.2d 596 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Ward v. Ochoa
green
1 sentence1975We are satisfied that the limitation-of-liability agreement between defendant State Farm and plaintiff Asbury (appellees herein) did not exist prior to or during trial so as to be characterized as a "Mary Carter" agreement subject to discovery within the contemplation of Ward v. Ochoa, Fla. 1973, 284 So.2d 385 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Lee v. Lee
green
1 sentence1975Cf. Lee v. Lee, Fla.App.1975, 309 So.2d 26 ; Cantor v. Cantor, Fla.App.1975, 306 So.2d 596 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Anderson v. Anderson
green
1 sentence1975See 10A Fla.Jur., Dissolution of Marriage, sec. 43; and Anderson v. Anderson, 309 So.2d 1 , Supreme Court of Florida Case No. 45,217 opinion filed January 8, 1975. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Hollingshead v. Wainwright
green
1 sentence1974Although this matter has proceeded for full appellate review by way of habeas corpus under the authority of Hollingshead v. Wainwright, Fla. 1967, 194 So.2d 577 , we are not convinced that the record demonstrates that petitioner's right to appeal was frustrated by state action. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Florida Power Corporation v. Smith
green
1 sentence1974We have considered the action in light of the criteria found in Florida Power Corporation v. Smith, 202 So.2d 872 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1967), and are of the opinion that no reversible error has been made to appear. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Stolley & Associates, Inc. v. Lawrence
green
1 sentence1973Spalding v. Von Zamft, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 208 ; Stolley & Associates, Inc. v. Lawrence, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 446 ; Mendez v. George Hunt, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 480 ; James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Company, Fla.App. 1970, 238 So.2d 487 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Company
green
1 sentence1973Spalding v. Von Zamft, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 208 ; Stolley & Associates, Inc. v. Lawrence, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 446 ; Mendez v. George Hunt, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 480 ; James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Company, Fla.App. 1970, 238 So.2d 487 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Spalding v. Von Zamft
green
1 sentence1973Spalding v. Von Zamft, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 208 ; Stolley & Associates, Inc. v. Lawrence, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 446 ; Mendez v. George Hunt, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 480 ; James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Company, Fla.App. 1970, 238 So.2d 487 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Mendez v. George Hunt, Inc.
green
1 sentence1973Spalding v. Von Zamft, Fla.App.1965, 180 So.2d 208 ; Stolley & Associates, Inc. v. Lawrence, Fla.App.1971, 243 So.2d 446 ; Mendez v. George Hunt, Inc., Fla.App.1966, 191 So.2d 480 ; James A. Knowles, Inc. v. Imperial Lumber Company, Fla.App. 1970, 238 So.2d 487 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
City of Miami v. Thaw
neutral
1 sentence1973City of Miami v. Thaw, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 902 ; Citizens Ins. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Stratos v. State
neutral
1 sentence1972Fisher v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 863 ; Mears v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 749 ; Mitchell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 676 cert. den. 392 U.S. 913 , 88 S.Ct. 2073 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1371 ; Ghelfi v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 720 ; Marshall v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 723 ; Stratos v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 771 ; and Wade v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 572 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Wade v. State
neutral
1 sentence1972Fisher v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 863 ; Mears v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 749 ; Mitchell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 676 cert. den. 392 U.S. 913 , 88 S.Ct. 2073 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1371 ; Ghelfi v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 720 ; Marshall v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 723 ; Stratos v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 771 ; and Wade v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 572 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Fisher v. State
green
1 sentence1972Fisher v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 863 ; Mears v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 749 ; Mitchell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 676 cert. den. 392 U.S. 913 , 88 S.Ct. 2073 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1371 ; Ghelfi v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 720 ; Marshall v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 723 ; Stratos v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 771 ; and Wade v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 572 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Mitchell v. State
green
1 sentence1972Fisher v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 863 ; Mears v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 749 ; Mitchell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 676 cert. den. 392 U.S. 913 , 88 S.Ct. 2073 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1371 ; Ghelfi v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 720 ; Marshall v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 723 ; Stratos v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 771 ; and Wade v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 572 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Fort v. California
green
1 sentence1972Fisher v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 863 ; Mears v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 749 ; Mitchell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 676 cert. den. 392 U.S. 913 , 88 S.Ct. 2073 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1371 ; Ghelfi v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 720 ; Marshall v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 723 ; Stratos v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 771 ; and Wade v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 572 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Mears v. State
neutral
1 sentence1972Fisher v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 863 ; Mears v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 749 ; Mitchell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 676 cert. den. 392 U.S. 913 , 88 S.Ct. 2073 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1371 ; Ghelfi v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 720 ; Marshall v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 723 ; Stratos v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 771 ; and Wade v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 572 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Rodeheaver v. State
green
1 sentence1972Fisher v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 863 ; Mears v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 749 ; Mitchell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 676 cert. den. 392 U.S. 913 , 88 S.Ct. 2073 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1371 ; Ghelfi v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 720 ; Marshall v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 723 ; Stratos v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 771 ; and Wade v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 572 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Ghelfi v. State
neutral
1 sentence1972Fisher v. State, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 863 ; Mears v. State, Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 749 ; Mitchell v. State, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 676 cert. den. 392 U.S. 913 , 88 S.Ct. 2073 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1371 ; Ghelfi v. State, Fla.App.1971, 251 So.2d 720 ; Marshall v. State, Fla.App.1969, 224 So.2d 723 ; Stratos v. State, Fla.App.1964, 167 So.2d 771 ; and Wade v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So.2d 572 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Ward v. Forde
green
2 sentences1958The case of Ward v. Forde, 1944, 154 Fla. 383 , 17 So.2d 691, 695 , is strongly urged upon us by the plaintiff. 1958The case of Ward v. Forde, 1944, 154 Fla. 383 , 17 So.2d 691, 695 , is strongly urged upon us by the plaintiff. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Fleming v. State
green
1 sentence1938Per Curiam. above entitled cause having been submitted upon the transcript of the record and the briefs and argument of counsel, the Court after due consideration is *777 of the opinion that no reversible error appears and that the order appealed from should be affirmed upon the authority of Section 26 of the 1931 Chancery Act and the following cases: Whitaker v. Wright, 100 Fla. 282 , 129 So. 889 ; Mirror Lake Co. v. Kirk Securities Corp., et al., 98 Fla. 946 , 124 So. 719 ; Barry v. Walker, et al., 103 Fla. 533 , 137 So. 711 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Barry v. Walker
green
1 sentence1938Per Curiam. above entitled cause having been submitted upon the transcript of the record and the briefs and argument of counsel, the Court after due consideration is *777 of the opinion that no reversible error appears and that the order appealed from should be affirmed upon the authority of Section 26 of the 1931 Chancery Act and the following cases: Whitaker v. Wright, 100 Fla. 282 , 129 So. 889 ; Mirror Lake Co. v. Kirk Securities Corp., et al., 98 Fla. 946 , 124 So. 719 ; Barry v. Walker, et al., 103 Fla. 533 , 137 So. 711 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Mirror Lake Co. v. Kirk Securities Corp.
green
2 sentences1938Per Curiam. above entitled cause having been submitted upon the transcript of the record and the briefs and argument of counsel, the Court after due consideration is *777 of the opinion that no reversible error appears and that the order appealed from should be affirmed upon the authority of Section 26 of the 1931 Chancery Act and the following cases: Whitaker v. Wright, 100 Fla. 282 , 129 So. 889 ; Mirror Lake Co. v. Kirk Securities Corp., et al., 98 Fla. 946 , 124 So. 719 ; Barry v. Walker, et al., 103 Fla. 533 , 137 So. 711 . 1938Per Curiam. above entitled cause having been submitted upon the transcript of the record and the briefs and argument of counsel, the Court after due consideration is *777 of the opinion that no reversible error appears and that the order appealed from should be affirmed upon the authority of Section 26 of the 1931 Chancery Act and the following cases: Whitaker v. Wright, 100 Fla. 282 , 129 So. 889 ; Mirror Lake Co. v. Kirk Securities Corp., et al., 98 Fla. 946 , 124 So. 719 ; Barry v. Walker, et al., 103 Fla. 533 , 137 So. 711 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Whitaker v. Wright
green
2 sentences1938Per Curiam. above entitled cause having been submitted upon the transcript of the record and the briefs and argument of counsel, the Court after due consideration is *777 of the opinion that no reversible error appears and that the order appealed from should be affirmed upon the authority of Section 26 of the 1931 Chancery Act and the following cases: Whitaker v. Wright, 100 Fla. 282 , 129 So. 889 ; Mirror Lake Co. v. Kirk Securities Corp., et al., 98 Fla. 946 , 124 So. 719 ; Barry v. Walker, et al., 103 Fla. 533 , 137 So. 711 . 1938Per Curiam. above entitled cause having been submitted upon the transcript of the record and the briefs and argument of counsel, the Court after due consideration is *777 of the opinion that no reversible error appears and that the order appealed from should be affirmed upon the authority of Section 26 of the 1931 Chancery Act and the following cases: Whitaker v. Wright, 100 Fla. 282 , 129 So. 889 ; Mirror Lake Co. v. Kirk Securities Corp., et al., 98 Fla. 946 , 124 So. 719 ; Barry v. Walker, et al., 103 Fla. 533 , 137 So. 711 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
| State ex rel. Hampton v. McClung green | 1 | 1933–1933 |
| Lassiter v. State neutral | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.