18 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gibson v. Buicegreen2 sentences2009See Gibson v. Buice, 381 So.2d 349, 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). 2009See Gibson v. Buice, 381 So.2d 349, 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). | 2 | 2 |
Pag v. Afgreen1 sentence2025See Kaiser v. Harrison, 985 So. 2d 1226, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing P.A.G. v. A.F., 602 So. 2d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 1992)). 3 The Husband subpoenaed Rodolfo Oliva3 to testify during the February 2024 hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Delgado v. Agency for Health Care Admin.green1 sentence2025See Delgado v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 237 So. 3d 432, 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (explaining that courts will strictly enforce pretrial stipulations that identify triable issues in a case (quoting Broche v. Cohn, 987 So. 2d 124, 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008))). | 1 | 1 |
Broche v. Cohngreen1 sentence2025See Delgado v. Ag. for Health Care Admin., 237 So. 3d 432, 437 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (explaining that courts will strictly enforce pretrial stipulations that identify triable issues in a case (quoting Broche v. Cohn, 987 So. 2d 124, 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008))). | 1 | 1 |
Kaiser v. Harrisongreen1 sentence2025See Kaiser v. Harrison, 985 So. 2d 1226, 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (citing P.A.G. v. A.F., 602 So. 2d 1259, 1260 (Fla. 1992)). 3 The Husband subpoenaed Rodolfo Oliva3 to testify during the February 2024 hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Freilich v. Freilichgreen1 sentence2024Additionally, the standard of review we apply to “appropriately review a trial court’s order imputing income to a spouse is whether competent, substantial evidence supports the findings.” Freilich v. Freilich, 897 So. 2d 537, 543 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). “[A] [general magistrate]’s findings of fact and conclusions of law come to the trial court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the trial court may only reject these findings and conclusions if they are clearly erroneous or if the [general magistrate] has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence presented.” Bank of New York Mellon | 1 | 1 |
Mandico v. Taos Const., Inc.green1 sentence2024Father then petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over Mother’s petition to modify the foreign support order. 1 Father also argued that he had not exercised timesharing because of Mother’s secretive relocation with daughter to Florida and subsequent interference with his timesharing rights. 2 Analysis “Prohibition is an extraordinary writ by which a superior court may prevent an inferior court or tribunal, over which it has appellate and supervisory jurisdiction, from acting outside its jurisdiction.” Scott v. Francati, 214 So. 3d 742, 748 | 1 | 1 |
Troike v. Troikegreen1 sentence2024See Troike v. Troike, 271 So. 3d 1069, 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); Gudur v. Gudur, 277 So. 3d 687 , 693-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (“The trial court cannot deny a request for attorney's fees under section 61.16 without making findings as to one party's 1 The trial court granted the Father’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. | 1 | 1 |
M.L. v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Additionally, the standard of review we apply to “appropriately review a trial court’s order imputing income to a spouse is whether competent, substantial evidence supports the findings.” Freilich v. Freilich, 897 So. 2d 537, 543 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). “[A] [general magistrate]’s findings of fact and conclusions of law come to the trial court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the trial court may only reject these findings and conclusions if they are clearly erroneous or if the [general magistrate] has misconceived the legal effect of the evidence presented.” Bank of New York Mellon | 1 | 1 |
Hayes v. Norman Harris Services, Inc.green1 sentence2024Cf. Hayes v. Norman Harris Servs., Inc., 198 So. 3d 716, 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("While counsel for the Hayes could have done a better job of informing the court that a separate homestead objection remained, counsel clearly did so in a timely motion for rehearing."). | 1 | 1 |
GMI, LLC v. Asociacion Del Futbol Argentinogreen1 sentence2024See GMI, LLC v. Asociacion del Futbol Argentino, 174 So. 3d 500, 501 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Rick Scott, in his official capacity etc. v. Gail Francatigreen1 sentence2024Father then petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over Mother’s petition to modify the foreign support order. 1 Father also argued that he had not exercised timesharing because of Mother’s secretive relocation with daughter to Florida and subsequent interference with his timesharing rights. 2 Analysis “Prohibition is an extraordinary writ by which a superior court may prevent an inferior court or tribunal, over which it has appellate and supervisory jurisdiction, from acting outside its jurisdiction.” Scott v. Francati, 214 So. 3d 742, 748 | 1 | 1 |
Raimi v. Furlonggreen1 sentence2023That she was ultimately unsuccessful was not the result of being blindsided by the remedy that Father sought.3 3 The court found that regardless of whether H.G. was ill, Father was still entitled to his scheduled timesharing under the parenting plan. 6 It is also true that a party’s lack of objection does not render an issue tried by consent “when the evidence introduced is relevant to other issues properly being tried.” Id. (quoting Raimi v. Furlong, 702 So. 2d 1273, 1285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2023He also abandoned his request to modify the parenting plan as to parental responsibility for H.G.’s medical decisions. 5 675 So. 2d 252 , 254 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see, e.g., Johnson v. Johnson, 979 So. 2d 350, 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“[T]he categorization of the 5.25 acres as either marital or non-marital was the main issue before the General Magistrate and was tried without objection by Husband. | 1 | 1 |
Renovaship, Inc. v. Quatremaingreen1 sentence2022Cf. Renovaship, Inc. v. Quatremain, 208 So. 3d 280, 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (construing defendant’s motion to vacate dismissal order as motion for relief under rule 1. 540(b)(4); “While not expressly set forth in the motion to vacate, Quatremain’s argument implied that the failure to receive the dismissal order constituted a denial of due process, rendering the order ‘void’ under rule 1.540(b)(4) and subject to attack at any time.”). | 1 | 1 |
Saye v. Pieschacongreen1 sentence2006See Saye v. Pieschacon, 750 So.2d 759, 761 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)(finding that an appellant was precluded from raising an issue on appeal regarding the denial of a motion for new trial because the notice of appeal, invoking the appellate court’s jurisdiction over the appeal, indicated only that appellant was appealing from the trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees and costs, not the trial court’s order denying the motion for new trial); see also Cobb v. St. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., Johnson, 455 So.2d at 1332 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Department of Revenue v. Vanjaria Enterprises
green
1 sentence2023He also abandoned his request to modify the parenting plan as to parental responsibility for H.G.’s medical decisions. 5 675 So. 2d 252 , 254 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see, e.g., Johnson v. Johnson, 979 So. 2d 350, 352 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“[T]he categorization of the 5.25 acres as either marital or non-marital was the main issue before the General Magistrate and was tried without objection by Husband. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
MI v. Department of Children and Families
green
1 sentence2015M.I. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 45 So.3d 878 (Fla. *574 4th DCA 2010). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State Ex Rel. the Dowling Co. v. Parks
neutral
2 sentences2013Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264 , 128 So. 837 (1930); Curry v. State, 16 So.3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Robinson v. Weiland, 988 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Formor v. State, 923 So.2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 300 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). 3 We do not attribute to the trial court any conscious effort to deviate, but charge the errors that were made to the confusion (noted several times in Father’s brief) that cast a pall over the remand proceedings. 2013Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264 , 128 So. 837 (1930); Curry v. State, 16 So.3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Robinson v. Weiland, 988 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Formor v. State, 923 So.2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 300 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). 3 We do not attribute to the trial court any conscious effort to deviate, but charge the errors that were made to the confusion (noted several times in Father’s brief) that cast a pall over the remand proceedings. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Curry v. State
neutral
1 sentence2013Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264 , 128 So. 837 (1930); Curry v. State, 16 So.3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Robinson v. Weiland, 988 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Formor v. State, 923 So.2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 300 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). 3 We do not attribute to the trial court any conscious effort to deviate, but charge the errors that were made to the confusion (noted several times in Father’s brief) that cast a pall over the remand proceedings. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Formor v. State
green
1 sentence2013Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264 , 128 So. 837 (1930); Curry v. State, 16 So.3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Robinson v. Weiland, 988 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Formor v. State, 923 So.2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 300 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). 3 We do not attribute to the trial court any conscious effort to deviate, but charge the errors that were made to the confusion (noted several times in Father’s brief) that cast a pall over the remand proceedings. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Robinson v. Weiland
green
1 sentence2013Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264 , 128 So. 837 (1930); Curry v. State, 16 So.3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Robinson v. Weiland, 988 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Formor v. State, 923 So.2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 300 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). 3 We do not attribute to the trial court any conscious effort to deviate, but charge the errors that were made to the confusion (noted several times in Father’s brief) that cast a pall over the remand proceedings. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Mendelson v. Mendelson
green
1 sentence2013Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264 , 128 So. 837 (1930); Curry v. State, 16 So.3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Robinson v. Weiland, 988 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Formor v. State, 923 So.2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 300 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). 3 We do not attribute to the trial court any conscious effort to deviate, but charge the errors that were made to the confusion (noted several times in Father’s brief) that cast a pall over the remand proceedings. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc.
green
1 sentence2013Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264 , 128 So. 837 (1930); Curry v. State, 16 So.3d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Robinson v. Weiland, 988 So.2d 1110 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Formor v. State, 923 So.2d 563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 300 So.2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). 3 We do not attribute to the trial court any conscious effort to deviate, but charge the errors that were made to the confusion (noted several times in Father’s brief) that cast a pall over the remand proceedings. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Woodall v. State
green
1 sentence2013The trial court denied the Father’s motion without a hearing, and without giving the Father the opportunity to present evidence to show whether he had a “ ‘meritorious defense’ to the proceedings.” Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Miller v. Schou
green
1 sentence1997The issue in this case is whether, because of dictum in Miller v. Schou, 616 So.2d 436 (Fla.1993), Florida has become a support-plus state. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Ginsberg v. Ginsberg
green
1 sentence1975Tested by the standard laid down in Kosch and later cases such as Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App. 1960, 123 So.2d 57 , the notice to the father for the hearing upon the motion for contempt order was sufficient. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Winner v. Sharp
green
1 sentence1957In referring to our opinion in Winner v. Sharp, Fla. 1950, 43 So.2d 634 , a case involving the defense of contributory negligence of a third party custodian of a minor child, we pointed out that we were not intending to hold that the mother occupies the position of a third party custodian whose contributory negligence might bind the parents who employ her. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.