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.
14 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1958–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Topper v. Alcazar Operating Co.green2 sentences1959See Topper v. Alcazar Operating Co., 1948, 160 Fla. 421 , 35 So.2d 392 ; Todd v. Hyzer, 1944, 154 Fla. 702 , 18 So.2d 888 ; Williams v. Neeld-Gordon Co., 1923, 86 Fla. 59 , 97 So. 315 ; and Miller v. Murray, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 594 .” The Chancellor was fully justified by the record in finding that appellants’ delay of more than three years was unexcused. 1959See Topper v. Alcazar Operating Co., 1948, 160 Fla. 421 , 35 So.2d 392 ; Todd v. Hyzer, 1944, 154 Fla. 702 , 18 So.2d 888 ; Williams v. Neeld-Gordon Co., 1923, 86 Fla. 59 , 97 So. 315 ; and Miller v. Murray, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 594 .” The Chancellor was fully justified by the record in finding that appellants’ delay of more than three years was unexcused. | 2 | 2 |
Humphrys v. Jarrellgreen2 sentences1982This test imposes a greater degree of proof than that required under the preponderance of evidence rule.” Humphrys v. Jarrell, 104 So.2d 404, 410 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958). 1971Humphrys v. Jarrell, Fla., 104 So.2d 404 . | 1 | 2 |
City of Tallahassee v. Big Bend Police Benevolent Ass'ngreen1 sentence2011See City of Tallahassee v. Big Bend Police Benevolent Ass’n, 710 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“Assuming, without deciding, that the application of the preponderance of evidence standard was required, the arbitrator’s use of the stricter standard is not a basis for vacating the arbitrator’s decision under section 682.13(1), Florida Statutes (1995).”). | 1 | 1 |
Commercial Interiors Corp. of Boca Raton v. Pinkerton & Laws, Inc.green1 sentence2011See also Schnurmacher, 542 So.2d at 1329 (rejecting argument that arbitrator exceeds his power under section 682.13(l)(c) if the arbitrator “departs from the accepted rule of law” and holding that, absent a showing that the arbitrator went beyond the authority granted by the parties or the operative documents and decided an issue not pertinent to the resolution of the issue submitted to arbitration, an “award cannot be vacated under section 682.13(l)(c)”); Commercial Interiors Corp. of Boca Raton v. Pinkerton & Laws, Inc., 19 So.3d 1062, 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[I]t appears that the trial c | 1 | 1 |
Schnurmacher Holding, Inc. v. Noriegagreen1 sentence2011See also Schnurmacher, 542 So.2d at 1329 (rejecting argument that arbitrator exceeds his power under section 682.13(l)(c) if the arbitrator “departs from the accepted rule of law” and holding that, absent a showing that the arbitrator went beyond the authority granted by the parties or the operative documents and decided an issue not pertinent to the resolution of the issue submitted to arbitration, an “award cannot be vacated under section 682.13(l)(c)”); Commercial Interiors Corp. of Boca Raton v. Pinkerton & Laws, Inc., 19 So.3d 1062, 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“[I]t appears that the trial c | 1 | 1 |
Roseboro v. Stategreen1 sentence1999See Roseboro v. State, 528 So.2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). | 1 | 1 |
Board of Education v. Boxgreen1 sentence1990See Board of Educ. v. Box, 191 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Ferris v. Turlingtongreen1 sentence1990Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d at 294, n. 2 . [2] Other jurisdictions have specifically applied the preponderance of evidence standard in teacher dismissal cases. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Ganier v. Estate of Ganiergreen1 sentence1989See Estate of Ganier v. Estate of Ganier, 418 So.2d 256 (Fla. 1982). | 1 | 1 |
Denehy v. Stategreen1 sentence1988See Denehy v. State, 400 So.2d 1216 (Fla.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Muller v. Gables Racing Association, Inc.green2 sentences1982This law applies with particular force to a parol contract where the requirements of definiteness, certainty and completeness are especially applicable. 29A Fla.Jur., “Specific Performance” § 27, at 613 (1967); see Muller v. Gables Racing Ass’n, 142 Fla. 834 , 196 So. 864, 867 (1940). 1982This law applies with particular force to a parol contract where the requirements of definiteness, certainty and completeness are especially applicable. 29A Fla.Jur., “Specific Performance” § 27, at 613 (1967); see Muller v. Gables Racing Ass’n, 142 Fla. 834 , 196 So. 864, 867 (1940). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Murray
green
2 sentences1959See Topper v. Alcazar Operating Co., 1948, 160 Fla. 421 , 35 So.2d 392 ; Todd v. Hyzer, 1944, 154 Fla. 702 , 18 So.2d 888 ; Williams v. Neeld-Gordon Co., 1923, 86 Fla. 59 , 97 So. 315 ; and Miller v. Murray, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 594 .” The Chancellor was fully justified by the record in finding that appellants’ delay of more than three years was unexcused. 1958See Topper v. Alcazar Operating Co., 1948, 160 Fla. 421 , 35 So.2d 392 ; Todd v. Hyzer, 1944, 154 Fla. 702 , 18 So.2d 888 ; Williams v. Neeld-Gordon Co., 1923, 86 Fla. 59 , 97 So. 315 ; and Miller v. Murray, Fla. 1953, 68 So.2d 594 . | 2 | 1958–1959 |
Todd v. Hyzer
green
2 sentences1959See Topper v. Alcazar Operating Co., 1948, 160 Fla. 421 , 35 So.2d 392 ; Todd v. Hyzer, 1944, 154 Fla. 702 , 18 So.2d 888 ; Williams v. Neeld-Gordon Co., 1923, 86 Fla. 59 , 97 So. 315 ; and Miller v. Murray, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 594 .” The Chancellor was fully justified by the record in finding that appellants’ delay of more than three years was unexcused. 1959See Topper v. Alcazar Operating Co., 1948, 160 Fla. 421 , 35 So.2d 392 ; Todd v. Hyzer, 1944, 154 Fla. 702 , 18 So.2d 888 ; Williams v. Neeld-Gordon Co., 1923, 86 Fla. 59 , 97 So. 315 ; and Miller v. Murray, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 594 .” The Chancellor was fully justified by the record in finding that appellants’ delay of more than three years was unexcused. | 2 | 1958–1959 |
Williams v. Neeld-Gordon Co.
green
2 sentences1959See Topper v. Alcazar Operating Co., 1948, 160 Fla. 421 , 35 So.2d 392 ; Todd v. Hyzer, 1944, 154 Fla. 702 , 18 So.2d 888 ; Williams v. Neeld-Gordon Co., 1923, 86 Fla. 59 , 97 So. 315 ; and Miller v. Murray, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 594 .” The Chancellor was fully justified by the record in finding that appellants’ delay of more than three years was unexcused. 1959See Topper v. Alcazar Operating Co., 1948, 160 Fla. 421 , 35 So.2d 392 ; Todd v. Hyzer, 1944, 154 Fla. 702 , 18 So.2d 888 ; Williams v. Neeld-Gordon Co., 1923, 86 Fla. 59 , 97 So. 315 ; and Miller v. Murray, Fla.1953, 68 So.2d 594 .” The Chancellor was fully justified by the record in finding that appellants’ delay of more than three years was unexcused. | 2 | 1958–1959 |
Cox v. State
green
1 sentence2024In Cox v. State, 816 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), involving a probation revocation proceeding, which is also governed by a preponderance of evidence standard, the court concluded that a prior conviction could not be proved by name identity alone: Cox argues that the similarity in names and birth dates is insufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard for revoking probation. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
DEPT. OF BANKING & FIN. v. Osborne Stern
green
1 sentence2008DCF relies on Department of Banking and Finance v. Osborne Stern and Co., 670 So.2d 932 (Fla.1996), in support of its argument. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Florida Dept. of Transp. v. JWC Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2008In J.W.C., cited in the above passage from Osborne, the First District explained that, in the context of a license application, a party's request for an administrative hearing "commenced a de novo proceeding, which, as previously indicated, is intended 'to formulate final agency action, not to review action taken earlier and preliminarily.'" J.W.C., 396 So.2d at 786-87 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Cochran v. Broward County Police Benevolent Association, Inc.
green
1 sentence1998Cochran v. Broward County Police Benevolent Ass’n, Inc., 693 So.2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Howard v. Goodspeed
green
2 sentences1975Fla. 1931, 101 Fla. 699 , 135 So. 294 ), the grantor satisfies this burden by meeting the preponderance of evidence test. 1975Fla. 1931, 101 Fla. 699 , 135 So. 294 ), the grantor satisfies this burden by meeting the preponderance of evidence test. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Marcus v. Hull
green
2 sentences1975(Marcus v. Hull, 1940, 142 Fla. 306 , 195 So. 170 ) Sub judice, the trial court determined, as best he could, the true intent of the parties. 1975(Marcus v. Hull, 1940, 142 Fla. 306 , 195 So. 170 ) Sub judice, the trial court determined, as best he could, the true intent of the parties. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Graham
green
1 sentence1974As to the second question, we recently adopted in the case of McDole v. State, 283 So.2d 553 , opinion filed May 16, 1973, the preponderance of evidence rule in place of the clear and convincing evidence rule heretofore noted in Perkins v. State, (Fla. 1969), 228 So.2d 382 , 381; State v. Graham, (Fla.App. 1970), 240 So.2d 486 , and State v. Ansley, (Fla.App. 1971), 251 So.2d 42 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Perkins v. State
green
1 sentence1974As to the second question, we recently adopted in the case of McDole v. State, 283 So.2d 553 , opinion filed May 16, 1973, the preponderance of evidence rule in place of the clear and convincing evidence rule heretofore noted in Perkins v. State, (Fla. 1969), 228 So.2d 382 , 381; State v. Graham, (Fla.App. 1970), 240 So.2d 486 , and State v. Ansley, (Fla.App. 1971), 251 So.2d 42 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
McDole v. State
green
1 sentence1974As to the second question, we recently adopted in the case of McDole v. State, 283 So.2d 553 , opinion filed May 16, 1973, the preponderance of evidence rule in place of the clear and convincing evidence rule heretofore noted in Perkins v. State, (Fla. 1969), 228 So.2d 382 , 381; State v. Graham, (Fla.App. 1970), 240 So.2d 486 , and State v. Ansley, (Fla.App. 1971), 251 So.2d 42 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
State v. Ansley
neutral
1 sentence1974As to the second question, we recently adopted in the case of McDole v. State, 283 So.2d 553 , opinion filed May 16, 1973, the preponderance of evidence rule in place of the clear and convincing evidence rule heretofore noted in Perkins v. State, (Fla. 1969), 228 So.2d 382 , 381; State v. Graham, (Fla.App. 1970), 240 So.2d 486 , and State v. Ansley, (Fla.App. 1971), 251 So.2d 42 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.