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.
17 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Riveragreen2 sentences2002In Espiet v. State, 797 So.2d 598, 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), this court discussed the standard of review of a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal: The purpose of a motion for judgment of acquittal is to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented by the state. *1206 See State v. Rivera, 719 So.2d 335, 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 2002See State v. Rivera, 719 So.2d 335, 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). | 3 | 3 |
Espiet v. Stategreen2 sentences2002In Espiet v. State, 797 So.2d 598, 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), this court discussed the standard of review of a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal: The purpose of a motion for judgment of acquittal is to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented by the state. *1206 See State v. Rivera, 719 So.2d 335, 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). 2002In Espiet v. State, 797 So.2d 598, 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), this court discussed the standard of review of a denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal: The purpose of a motion for judgment of acquittal is to test the legal sufficiency of the evidence presented by the state. | 3 | 3 |
Williams v. Tandem Health Care of Floridagreen2 sentences2025Id. at 377-78 . 2025Williams v. Tandem Health Care of Florida, Inc., 899 So. 2d 369, 378 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), the court discussed a claim by the resident's estate "that staff and residents had complained about insufficient staffing, that many other residents had fallen, and that [the facility] took no steps to protect residents . . . from falls." The resident's chart noted in several places that she was confused, disoriented, and at a high risk for falls. | 1 | 1 |
Kozel v. Ostendorfgreen1 sentence2021The trial court rejected Insurer’s response, finding deliberate violations of trial court orders due to Insurer’s late responses to Provider’s discovery requests and its ultimate provision of “inaccurate information.” The court concluded that Provider “suffered absolute prejudice in its ability to prepare to cross-examine the expert witness” and that the “prejudice was curable only by a continuance of the case that has lasted over a decade.” The court discussed the factors contained in Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817, 818 (Fla. 1993), stating that the Kozel factors militated toward striking | 1 | 1 |
Antonetti v. Amatogreen1 sentence2002Antonetti v. Amato, 544 So.2d 286, 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COM'N
green
2 sentences2002In Jackson v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 730 So.2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), this court discussed the standard of review the Commission must apply in reviewing a decision rendered by an appeals referee. 2002In Jackson v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 730 So.2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), this court discussed the standard of review the Commission must apply in reviewing a decision rendered by an appeals referee. ' We explained that once a referee makes a determination regarding a claim, the Commission reviews that decision to determine whether the referee’s findings of fact were based on competent, substantial evidence in the record and whether the proceedings on which the findings were based complied with the essential requirements of the law. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Bronson v. State
green
1 sentence2008Approximately one year before Mr. Waldron's trial, in Bronson v. State, 926 So.2d 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), this court discussed when the instruction regarding the inference arising from the possession of recently stolen property should be given. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Zollman v. State
green
2 sentences2003The court noted the lack of Florida case law on this issue and stated: "Cases from other states with a similar postconviction rule, however, make it clear that identity is a `genuinely disputed' issue when the only significant evidence connecting the defendant to the crime is the victim's identification of the defendant." Id. at 1062 . 2003In Zollman v. State, 820 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), this court discussed rule 3.853 and what constitutes a sufficient allegation that identity was a genuinely disputed issue at trial. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Camerota v. Kaufman
green
1 sentence2002In Camerota v. Kaufman, 666 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court discussed the presumption of receipt. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Fee v. Usler
green
1 sentence2002In the case of Fee v. Usler, 761 So.2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), this court discussed the factors that should be considered by a court in making a temporary change of custody award: The showing necessary to effectuate a temporary change of custody was explained by this court in Wilson v. Roseberry, 669 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996): In order to prevail on a request for a temporary modification of custody, the moving party must meet the burden of proving that (1) a substantial change in the condition of one or both of the parties has occurred, and (2) the best interests of the child will be pro | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Wilson v. Roseberry
green
1 sentence2002In the case of Fee v. Usler, 761 So.2d 361 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), this court discussed the factors that should be considered by a court in making a temporary change of custody award: The showing necessary to effectuate a temporary change of custody was explained by this court in Wilson v. Roseberry, 669 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996): In order to prevail on a request for a temporary modification of custody, the moving party must meet the burden of proving that (1) a substantial change in the condition of one or both of the parties has occurred, and (2) the best interests of the child will be pro | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Lee v. State
neutral
1 sentence2002In Lee v. State, 813 So.2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), a belated direct appeal case, this court discussed the rule's two year provision noting an exception where (1) the petitioner was unaware an appeal had not been timely filed, or was not advised of the right to appeal, and (2) he could not have ascertained such facts by the exercise of reasonable diligence. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Davis v. Chips Exp., Inc.
green
1 sentence1997In Davis v. Chips Express, Inc., 676 So.2d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), the court discussed factors that might cause a rear-end collision, illustrating that such a collision could have a cause other than the negligence of either the lead or the following driver. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Gonzalez v. State
green
1 sentence1994Recently, in Gonzalez v. State, 627 So.2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), the court discussed rule 3.450. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Collins v. School Bd. of Broward County
green
1 sentence1992In Collins v. School Bd. of Broward County, 471 So.2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), writ dismissed, 491 So.2d 280 (Fla. 1986), this court discussed the standard for review of an order granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict: When, after the entry of a jury verdict, the trial court grants a motion for judgment in accordance with the movant's prior motion for directed verdict, the ruling constitutes a deferred decision on the earlier motion for a directed verdict. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. West
green
1 sentence1989State v. Carroll, 404 So.2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Jones v. State, 392 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); State v. West, 262 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Jones v. State
neutral
1 sentence1989State v. Carroll, 404 So.2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Jones v. State, 392 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); State v. West, 262 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Hunwick
green
1 sentence1989In State v. Hunwick, 446 So.2d 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), this court discussed rule 3.190(c)(4) motions and said: Like summary judgment motions in civil cases, Criminal Procedure Rule 3.190(c)(4) motions should be granted rarely, for in most cases there are factual disputes that are properly to be resolved by the jury. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Carroll
green
1 sentence1989State v. Carroll, 404 So.2d 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Jones v. State, 392 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); State v. West, 262 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
E & E ELECTRIC CO. v. Gold Coast 72nd Street Diner, Inc.
green
1 sentence1976In E & E Electric Co. v. Gold Coast Seventy Second Street Diner, Inc., 116 So.2d 660 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1959), the Court discussed the test to be applied in determining whether there has been “improvement” under the mechanic’s lien law, as follows (Opinion page 63): . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.