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.
19 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ham v. Dunmiregreen2 sentences2017Mary’s, Inc., 67 So.3d 422, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)) (“Before a court may dismiss a cause as a sanction, it must first consider the six factors delineated in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1993), and set forth explicit findings of fact in the order that imposes the sanction of dismissal.”); Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004) (holding that dismissal as a sanction for a discovery violation is “an abuse of discretion where the trial court fails to make express written findings of fact supporting the conclusion that the failure to obey the court order demonstrated willful or d 2017A dismissal as a sanction for a discovery violation is “an abuse of discretion where the trial court fails to make express written findings of fact supporting the conclusion that the failure to obey the court order demonstrated willful or deliberate disregard .... ” Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004); Toll v. Korge, 127 So.3d 883, 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). | 3 | 3 |
McBride v. Stategreen2 sentences2019However, the "trial court's discretion can be properly exercised only after an adequate inquiry is made into three areas: (1) whether the discovery violation was willful or inadvertent; (2) whether it was trivial or substantial; and (3) whether it had a prejudicial effect on the opposing party's trial preparation." McDuffie v. State , 970 So.2d 312 , 321 (Fla. 2007) (citing Richardson , 246 So.2d at 775 ); see also McBride v. State , 913 So.2d 696 , 698-99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). 2019However, the "trial court's discretion can be properly exercised only after an adequate inquiry is made into three areas: (1) whether the discovery violation was willful or inadvertent; (2) whether it was trivial or substantial; and (3) whether it had a prejudicial effect on the opposing party's trial preparation." McDuffie v. State , 970 So.2d 312 , 321 (Fla. 2007) (citing Richardson , 246 So.2d at 775 ); see also McBride v. State , 913 So.2d 696 , 698-99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). | 2 | 2 |
A Professional Nurse, Inc. v. STATE, DHRSgreen2 sentences1999See A Professional Nurse, Inc. v. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 519 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). 1999See id. | 2 | 2 |
McDuffie v. Stategreen2 sentences2019However, the "trial court's discretion can be properly exercised only after an adequate inquiry is made into three areas: (1) whether the discovery violation was willful or inadvertent; (2) whether it was trivial or substantial; and (3) whether it had a prejudicial effect on the opposing party's trial preparation." McDuffie v. State , 970 So.2d 312 , 321 (Fla. 2007) (citing Richardson , 246 So.2d at 775 ); see also McBride v. State , 913 So.2d 696 , 698-99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). 2019However, the "trial court's discretion can be properly exercised only after an adequate inquiry is made into three areas: (1) whether the discovery violation was willful or inadvertent; (2) whether it was trivial or substantial; and (3) whether it had a prejudicial effect on the opposing party's trial preparation." McDuffie v. State , 970 So.2d 312 , 321 (Fla. 2007) (citing Richardson , 246 So.2d at 775 ); see also McBride v. State , 913 So.2d 696 , 698-99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). | 1 | 3 |
Kozel v. Ostendorfgreen2 sentences2017Mary’s, Inc., 67 So.3d 422, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)) (“Before a court may dismiss a cause as a sanction, it must first consider the six factors delineated in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1993), and set forth explicit findings of fact in the order that imposes the sanction of dismissal.”); Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004) (holding that dismissal as a sanction for a discovery violation is “an abuse of discretion where the trial court fails to make express written findings of fact supporting the conclusion that the failure to obey the court order demonstrated willful or d 2013The award of $17,800 in attorney’s fees as a sanction for a discovery violation in this mortgage foreclosure case is reversed because the order does not contain the findings mandated by Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla.1993), and the record does not support a conclusion that the discovery violation was a willful and deliberate one as required by law. | 1 | 3 |
Utica Mut. v. Pennsylvania Nat. Mut.green1 sentence2024Co., 639 So. 2d 41, 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (finding no abuse of discretion in trial court’s decision to allow additional expert testimony despite late notice where opposing party had the opportunity to depose the new expert the night before trial); First Republic Corp. of Am. v. Hayes, 431 So. 2d 624 , 626–27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (explaining that exclusion at a pretrial conference of an expert witness as a sanction for a discovery violation was an abuse of discretion where the violation of the court’s pretrial order resulted from the attorney’s noncompliance, not the client’s, and “the trial cou | 1 | 1 |
Toll v. Korgegreen1 sentence2017A dismissal as a sanction for a discovery violation is “an abuse of discretion where the trial court fails to make express written findings of fact supporting the conclusion that the failure to obey the court order demonstrated willful or deliberate disregard .... ” Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004); Toll v. Korge, 127 So.3d 883, 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Bennett Ex Rel. Bennett v. Tenet St. Mary's, Inc.green1 sentence2017Mary’s, Inc., 67 So.3d 422, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)) (“Before a court may dismiss a cause as a sanction, it must first consider the six factors delineated in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1993), and set forth explicit findings of fact in the order that imposes the sanction of dismissal.”); Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So.2d 492, 495 (Fla. 2004) (holding that dismissal as a sanction for a discovery violation is “an abuse of discretion where the trial court fails to make express written findings of fact supporting the conclusion that the failure to obey the court order demonstrated willful or d | 1 | 1 |
Dorothy Chappelle, Calvin Johnson and Evelyn Williams v. South Florida Guardianship Program, Inc.green1 sentence2016See, e.g., Chappelle v. S. Fla. Guardianship Program, Inc., 169 So.3d 291, 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“We have consistently required the record to show an express consideration of the Kozel factors.” (quoting Vista St. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schwartzgreen1 sentence2015This most severe sanction, however, “should be a last resort and reserved for extreme or aggravated circumstances, particularly when the excluded testimony relates to critical issues or facts.” State v. Davis, 857 So.2d 349, 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quoting State v. Schwartz, 605 So.2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davisgreen1 sentence2015This most severe sanction, however, “should be a last resort and reserved for extreme or aggravated circumstances, particularly when the excluded testimony relates to critical issues or facts.” State v. Davis, 857 So.2d 349, 350 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (quoting State v. Schwartz, 605 So.2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)). | 1 | 1 |
Alaska Steamship Co. v. Pettersongreen1 sentence2013However, the Supreme Court has held that “[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one; ... ‘the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded....’” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (quoting Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 474 , 93 S.Ct. 2208 , 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973)); see generally Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 415 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (holding that the exclusion of a defense witness’s testimony as a sanctio | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2013However, the Supreme Court has held that “[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one; ... ‘the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded....’” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (quoting Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 474 , 93 S.Ct. 2208 , 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973)); see generally Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 415 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (holding that the exclusion of a defense witness’s testimony as a sanctio 2013However, the Supreme Court has held that “[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one; ... ‘the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded....’” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (quoting Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 474 , 93 S.Ct. 2208 , 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973)); see generally Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 415 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (holding that the exclusion of a defense witness’s testimony as a sanctio | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Edwards v. Edwardsyellow1 sentence2005See Edwards v. Edwards, 634 So.2d 284 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) ("The trial court has discretion to sanction a party who refuses to comply with a discovery order, but that discretion is limited by the provisions of rule 1.380(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dominguez v. Wolfe
green
2 sentences1999The adequacy of the initial petition has never been questioned. [8] Where no lesser sanction will suffice, see generally Dominguez v. Wolfe, 524 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with discovery order), an administrative law judge may dismiss a pleading as a sanction for a discovery violation. 1999Where no lesser sanction will suffice, see generally Dominguez v. Wolfe, 524 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (affirming dismissal for failure to comply with discovery order), an administrative law judge may dismiss a pleading as a sanction for a discovery violation. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
First Republic Corp. of America v. Hayes
green
1 sentence2024Co., 639 So. 2d 41, 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (finding no abuse of discretion in trial court’s decision to allow additional expert testimony despite late notice where opposing party had the opportunity to depose the new expert the night before trial); First Republic Corp. of Am. v. Hayes, 431 So. 2d 624 , 626–27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (explaining that exclusion at a pretrial conference of an expert witness as a sanction for a discovery violation was an abuse of discretion where the violation of the court’s pretrial order resulted from the attorney’s noncompliance, not the client’s, and “the trial cou | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Wardius v. Oregon
green
2 sentences2013However, the Supreme Court has held that “[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one; ... ‘the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded....’” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (quoting Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 474 , 93 S.Ct. 2208 , 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973)); see generally Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 415 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (holding that the exclusion of a defense witness’s testimony as a sanctio 2013However, the Supreme Court has held that “[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one; ... ‘the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded....’” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (quoting Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 474 , 93 S.Ct. 2208 , 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973)); see generally Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 415 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (holding that the exclusion of a defense witness’s testimony as a sanctio | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Weatherford v. Bursey
green
2 sentences2013However, the Supreme Court has held that “[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one; ... ‘the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded....’” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (quoting Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 474 , 93 S.Ct. 2208 , 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973)); see generally Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 415 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (holding that the exclusion of a defense witness’s testimony as a sanctio 2013However, the Supreme Court has held that “[t]here is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, and Brady did not create one; ... ‘the Due Process Clause has little to say regarding the amount of discovery which the parties must be afforded....’” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 , 97 S.Ct. 837 , 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977) (quoting Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 474 , 93 S.Ct. 2208 , 37 L.Ed.2d 82 (1973)); see generally Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 415 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988) (holding that the exclusion of a defense witness’s testimony as a sanctio | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Gosman v. Luzinski
green
1 sentence2007Florida's courts generally recognize that an implicit waiver of an important privilege as a sanction for a discovery violation should not be favored, but resorted to only when the violation is serious." Gosman, 937 So.2d at 296 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Insurance Co. of N. America v. Noya
green
1 sentence2004Cf. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lease America, Inc., 735 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (the judiciary of this state should protect communications which Floridians recognize as privileged, without being hobbled by less important considerations); Insurance Co. v. Noya, 398 So.2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (failure to file timely motion for protective order or written objections does not bar party from asserting privilege for matters outside scope of discovery). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Lease America, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Cf. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lease America, Inc., 735 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (the judiciary of this state should protect communications which Floridians recognize as privileged, without being hobbled by less important considerations); Insurance Co. v. Noya, 398 So.2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (failure to file timely motion for protective order or written objections does not bar party from asserting privilege for matters outside scope of discovery). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Momenah v. Ammache
green
1 sentence2001Before dismissing an action as a sanction for a discovery violation, the court must find that the plaintiffs failure to comply was “willful, flagrant, contumacious, or contemptuous.” Id. at 123 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Ferrante v. Waters
green
1 sentence1990Ferrante v. Waters, 383 So.2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Richardson v. State
green
1 sentence1982Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla 1971); State v. Bowers, 1 Fla. L. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.