assigned error in Florida

19 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1939–2025 2 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.

Followed or applied (12)

Case	Followed	Cited
City of Miami v. Steckloffgreen fla · 1959 · cited in 6 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1984–2024 2 sentences 2024See Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757 , 763 20 (Fla. 2002) (finding procedurally barred argument made in appellant's reply brief that was not raised in the initial brief), abrogated on other grounds by Norvil v. State, 191 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2016); City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) (“An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the briefs.”); J.A.B. 2019Otherwise, issues 4 not raised in the initial brief are considered waived or abandoned. 1 See Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757, 763 (Fla. 2002) (finding procedurally barred argument made in appellant’s reply brief that was not raised in the initial brief), abrogated on other grounds by Norvil v. State, 191 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2016); City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) (“An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the briefs.”); J.A.B.	6	6
Hall v. Stategreen fla · 2002 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2019–2024 2 sentences 2024See Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757 , 763 20 (Fla. 2002) (finding procedurally barred argument made in appellant's reply brief that was not raised in the initial brief), abrogated on other grounds by Norvil v. State, 191 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2016); City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) (“An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the briefs.”); J.A.B. 2019Otherwise, issues 4 not raised in the initial brief are considered waived or abandoned. 1 See Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757, 763 (Fla. 2002) (finding procedurally barred argument made in appellant’s reply brief that was not raised in the initial brief), abrogated on other grounds by Norvil v. State, 191 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2016); City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) (“An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the briefs.”); J.A.B.	2	2
JAB ENTERPRISES v. Gibbonsgreen fladistctapp · 1992 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2019–2024 2 sentences 2024Enter. v. Gibbons, 596 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (“[A]n issue not raised in an initial brief is deemed abandoned and may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief.”); Philip J. 2019Enter. v. Gibbons, 596 So. 2d 1247, 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (“[A]n issue not raised in an initial brief is deemed abandoned and may not be raised for the first time in a reply brief.”); Philip J.	2	2
Sidney Norvil, Jr. v. State of Floridagreen fla · 2016 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2019–2024 2 sentences 2024See Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757 , 763 20 (Fla. 2002) (finding procedurally barred argument made in appellant's reply brief that was not raised in the initial brief), abrogated on other grounds by Norvil v. State, 191 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2016); City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) (“An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the briefs.”); J.A.B. 2019Otherwise, issues 4 not raised in the initial brief are considered waived or abandoned. 1 See Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757, 763 (Fla. 2002) (finding procedurally barred argument made in appellant’s reply brief that was not raised in the initial brief), abrogated on other grounds by Norvil v. State, 191 So. 3d 406 (Fla. 2016); City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) (“An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the briefs.”); J.A.B.	1	2
Delta Cas. Co. v. Pinnacle Medical, Inc.green fladistctapp · 1998 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000 2 sentences 2000Id. at 325-26 . 2000See id. at 325-26 .	1	2
Nica v. Div. of Administrative Hearingsgreen fla · 1997 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025Hearings, 686 So. 2d 1349, 1354 (Fla. 1997) (“Birnie”) (providing that if NICA disputes a claim, “the dispute must be resolved by the assigned hearing officer in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 120”). 1 Taking the parents’ testimony in person and considering medical records and transcripts of various medical experts’ depositions, the ALJ rendered a final order determining the parents’ claim to be compensable.	1	1
Robertson v. Stategreen fla · 2002 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016See Pagan v. State, 29 So. 3d 938, 957 (Fla. 2009) (stating that the “purpose of an appellate brief is to present arguments in support of the points on appeal” and failing to do so will mean that such claims are “deemed to have been waived” (quoting Duest v. Dugger, 555 So. 2d 849, 852 (Fla.1990))); City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) (“An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the [appellate] briefs.”); see also Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002) (“[G]enerally, if a claim is not raised in the trial court 2016See Pagan v. State, 29 So.3d 938, 957 (Fla.2009) (stating that the “purpose of an appellate brief is to present arguments in support of the points on appeal” and failing to do so will mean that such claims are “deemed to have been waived” (quoting Duest v. Dugger, 555 So.2d 849, 852 (Fla.1990))); City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla.1959) (“An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the [appellate] briefs.”); see also Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901, 906 (Fla.2002) (“[Generally, if a claim is not raised in the trial court, it wil	1	1
Pagan v. Stategreen fla · 2009 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016See Pagan v. State, 29 So. 3d 938, 957 (Fla. 2009) (stating that the “purpose of an appellate brief is to present arguments in support of the points on appeal” and failing to do so will mean that such claims are “deemed to have been waived” (quoting Duest v. Dugger, 555 So. 2d 849, 852 (Fla.1990))); City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) (“An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the [appellate] briefs.”); see also Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002) (“[G]enerally, if a claim is not raised in the trial court 2016See Pagan v. State, 29 So.3d 938, 957 (Fla.2009) (stating that the “purpose of an appellate brief is to present arguments in support of the points on appeal” and failing to do so will mean that such claims are “deemed to have been waived” (quoting Duest v. Dugger, 555 So.2d 849, 852 (Fla.1990))); City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla.1959) (“An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the [appellate] briefs.”); see also Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901, 906 (Fla.2002) (“[Generally, if a claim is not raised in the trial court, it wil	1	1
Duest v. Duggergreen fla · 1990 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016See Pagan v. State, 29 So. 3d 938, 957 (Fla. 2009) (stating that the “purpose of an appellate brief is to present arguments in support of the points on appeal” and failing to do so will mean that such claims are “deemed to have been waived” (quoting Duest v. Dugger, 555 So. 2d 849, 852 (Fla.1990))); City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) (“An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the [appellate] briefs.”); see also Robertson v. State, 829 So. 2d 901, 906 (Fla. 2002) (“[G]enerally, if a claim is not raised in the trial court 2016See Pagan v. State, 29 So.3d 938, 957 (Fla.2009) (stating that the “purpose of an appellate brief is to present arguments in support of the points on appeal” and failing to do so will mean that such claims are “deemed to have been waived” (quoting Duest v. Dugger, 555 So.2d 849, 852 (Fla.1990))); City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla.1959) (“An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the [appellate] briefs.”); see also Robertson v. State, 829 So.2d 901, 906 (Fla.2002) (“[Generally, if a claim is not raised in the trial court, it wil	1	1
N.W. v. Department of Children & Familiesgreen fladistctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla.1959) ("An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the briefs.”); N.W. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 865 So.2d 625, 626 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (holding that issues not raised in the initial brief are deemed abandoned). 2 .	1	1
Phillips v. Blumgreen fladistctapp · 1962 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968 1 sentence 1968See Stuco Corp. v. Gates, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 527 and Phillips v. Blum, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 459 .	1	1
Stuco Corp. v. Gatesgreen fladistctapp · 1962 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1968–1968 1 sentence 1968See Stuco Corp. v. Gates, Fla.App.1962, 145 So.2d 527 and Phillips v. Blum, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 459 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (20)

Case	Cited	Years
Moss v. Appel green fladistctapp · 1998 1 sentence 2008The district court ruled that based on the Fourth District's decision in Moss, 718 So.2d at 199 , the negligence claim was moot, and only the breach of fiduciary duty claim could be presented to the jury because there was a fiduciary relationship between Wachovia and IMC. [1] *984 With regard to the breach of fiduciary duty claims, the district court instructed the jury that they were to consider whether Wachovia breached its fiduciary duty owed to IMC and Holman and Toomey as assignees of IMC.	1	2008–2008
Thompson v. State green fla · 1989 1 sentence 1992The opinions in Neil, Williams v. State, 574 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1991), Thompson v. State, 548 So.2d 198 (Fla. 1989), and Johans v. State, 587 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), do not discuss how the objections were preserved, perhaps because the issue was not raised.	1	1992–1992
Reed v. State green fla · 1990 1 sentence 1992In Reed v. State, 560 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 230 , 112 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990), the action of the trial court assigned as error was the denial of a motion for mistrial following a Neil inquiry.	1	1992–1992
Johans v. State green fladistctapp · 1991 1 sentence 1992The opinions in Neil, Williams v. State, 574 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1991), Thompson v. State, 548 So.2d 198 (Fla. 1989), and Johans v. State, 587 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), do not discuss how the objections were preserved, perhaps because the issue was not raised.	1	1992–1992
Williams v. State green fla · 1991 1 sentence 1992The opinions in Neil, Williams v. State, 574 So.2d 136 (Fla. 1991), Thompson v. State, 548 So.2d 198 (Fla. 1989), and Johans v. State, 587 So.2d 1363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), do not discuss how the objections were preserved, perhaps because the issue was not raised.	1	1992–1992
Clark v. American Agricultural Chemical Co. green · 1918 1 sentence 1992In Reed v. State, 560 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 230 , 112 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990), the action of the trial court assigned as error was the denial of a motion for mistrial following a Neil inquiry.	1	1992–1992
HOBBS CONST. & DEV., INC. v. Presbyterian Homes green fladistctapp · 1983 1 sentence 1987Although Crown’s fraudulent acts may be asserted by Habitat as a complete defense to Banner’s claim, Hobbs Constr. & Dev., Inc. v. Presbyterian Homes of the Synod of Fla., 440 So.2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); § 713.31(2)(a), (b), Fla.Stat. (1985), Habitat’s damages arising out of Crown’s fraudulent conduct, over and above the amount of Banner’s assigned claim, were not bargained for, and thus are not Banner’s obligations.	1	1987–1987
Plyser v. Hados green fladistctapp · 1980 1 sentence 1984See City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) ("An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the briefs"); Coleman v. Allen, 320 So.2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1976). [2] Although a party may, with leave of court, amend a pleading at or even after a hearing and ruling on a motion for summary judgment, Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, 159 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1963); Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1956); Plyser v. Hados, 388 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and a denial of leave to amend is an abuse	1	1984–1984
Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack green fla · 1963 1 sentence 1984See City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) ("An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the briefs"); Coleman v. Allen, 320 So.2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1976). [2] Although a party may, with leave of court, amend a pleading at or even after a hearing and ruling on a motion for summary judgment, Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, 159 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1963); Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1956); Plyser v. Hados, 388 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and a denial of leave to amend is an abuse	1	1984–1984
Coleman v. Allen green fladistctapp · 1975 1 sentence 1984See City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) ("An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the briefs"); Coleman v. Allen, 320 So.2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1976). [2] Although a party may, with leave of court, amend a pleading at or even after a hearing and ruling on a motion for summary judgment, Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, 159 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1963); Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1956); Plyser v. Hados, 388 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and a denial of leave to amend is an abuse	1	1984–1984
Greenburg v. Johnston green fladistctapp · 1979 1 sentence 1984See City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) ("An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the briefs"); Coleman v. Allen, 320 So.2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1976). [2] Although a party may, with leave of court, amend a pleading at or even after a hearing and ruling on a motion for summary judgment, Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, 159 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1963); Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1956); Plyser v. Hados, 388 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and a denial of leave to amend is an abuse	1	1984–1984
United Tel. Co. v. Mayo green fla · 1977 1 sentence 1984Co. v. Mayo, 345 So.2d 648 , 655 n. 6 (Fla. 1977).	1	1984–1984
Roberts v. Braynon green fla · 1956 1 sentence 1984See City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) ("An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the briefs"); Coleman v. Allen, 320 So.2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1976). [2] Although a party may, with leave of court, amend a pleading at or even after a hearing and ruling on a motion for summary judgment, Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, 159 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1963); Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1956); Plyser v. Hados, 388 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and a denial of leave to amend is an abuse	1	1984–1984
Davis v. Sun First Nat. Bank of Orlando green fladistctapp · 1981 1 sentence 1984See City of Miami v. Steckloff, 111 So.2d 446, 447 (Fla. 1959) ("An assigned error will be deemed to have been abandoned when it is completely omitted from the briefs"); Coleman v. Allen, 320 So.2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1976). [2] Although a party may, with leave of court, amend a pleading at or even after a hearing and ruling on a motion for summary judgment, Hart Properties, Inc. v. Slack, 159 So.2d 236 (Fla. 1963); Roberts v. Braynon, 90 So.2d 623 (Fla. 1956); Plyser v. Hados, 388 So.2d 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), and a denial of leave to amend is an abuse	1	1984–1984
Haverley v. Clann green fladistctapp · 1967 1 sentence 1975Appellant relies upon Haverley v. Clann, 196 So.2d 38 (2nd DCA Fla.App. 1967) for its position that it is error for the trial court to permit a party to use a deposition at trial under Rule 1.330(a)(3) RCP on the grounds that the witness is then either (a) more than 100 miles from the place of trial, or (b) out of the state, unless and until the party desiring to use the deposition has shown to the court's satisfaction by sworn evidence, independent of the deposition itself, that one of these conditions exists.	1	1975–1975
State v. Smith green fla · 1970 1 sentence 1973State v. Smith, 240 So.2d 807 (Fla. 1970).	1	1973–1973
Schneider v. State green fla · 1963 1 sentence 1966The court, in affirming the convictions, stated, “The evidence showed that robbery was committed at the time of and as incident to the homicide, and it was therefore not reversible error for the court to define the crime of robbery to the jury. * * * ” In Schneider v. State, Fla. 1963, 152 So.2d 731 , the defendant was also charged with first degree' murder.	1	1966–1966
Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Thomas green fla · 1939 2 sentences 1963Co. v. Thomas, 139 Fla. 474 , 190 So. 878 . 1963Co. v. Thomas, 139 Fla. 474 , 190 So. 878 .	1	1963–1963
Pryor v. Oak Ridge Development Corp. green fla · 1928	1	1961–1961
Lewis v. State green fla · 1908	1	1939–1939

Where else courts name it

OH 416 (1908–2026) LA 149 (1978–2026) NE 112 (1881–2026) IA 53 (1864–1986) WA 52 (1896–2026) MS 48 (1844–2018) IN 43 (1865–2006) OR 40 (1876–2025) CA 37 (1863–2016) TX 34 (1879–2026) MO 34 (1866–2005) IL 32 (1886–2014) VA 29 (1908–2026) OK 29 (1908–2026) PA 24 (1867–2016) NY 24 (1883–2025) GA 21 (1881–1997) AL 20 (1852–1975) FL 19 (1939–2025) MN 16 (1886–1983) MI 16 (1878–2025) NC 14 (1886–2018) CO 14 (1901–2013) WV 14 (1920–2023) NV 11 (1959–2020) CT 10 (1891–2024) TN 10 (1925–2025) AZ 8 (1918–2019) ID 6 (1867–1954) NJ 6 (1993–2021) MT 5 (1923–1995) WY 5 (1892–1975) KS 5 (1895–1989) SD 5 (1894–1983) WI 5 (1901–2021) UT 4 (1911–2017) AR 4 (1931–1983) SC 4 (1909–2021) HI 3 (1976–2013) DC 3 (1944–1997) NM 3 (1936–2023) ND 3 (1907–1962) ME 3 (1975–2015) AK 3 (1999–2025) KY 3 (1908–2010) VT 2 (1925–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check