14 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
De La Rosa v. Zequeiragreen2 sentences2026There, the Court discussed “the three- prong test which applies in cases of juror nondisclosure.” Id. at 339 (citing De La Rosa v. Zequeria, 659 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla. 1995)). 2000Skinner was asked his understanding of the term "lawsuit," and he responded, "I hurt somebody or someone hurt me and they [sic] suing me for damages." In De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239, 241 (Fla.1995), the supreme court set forth a three prong test for determining whether juror non-disclosure of information during voir dire warrants a new trial: First, the complaining party must establish that the information is relevant and material to jury service in the case. | 3 | 3 |
Hayward v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Hayward v. State, 24 So. 3d 17, 29 (Fla. 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Driggers v. Driggersgreen1 sentence2017See Driggers v. Driggers, 127 So. 3d 762, 763 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). | 1 | 1 |
City of Mary Esther v. McArtorgreen1 sentence2009This court has interpreted “disability” as occurring “ ‘only when [a claimant] becomes actually incapacitated, partially or totally, from performing his employment.’ ” Id. (quoting City of Mary Esther v. McArtor, 902 So.2d 942, 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)). | 1 | 1 |
Bivens v. City of Lakelandgreen2 sentences2009The JCC found the cardiologist’s office note of August 6, 2007, corroborated Claimant’s “testimony insofar as it inclicatefd] a history of ‘no work’ for the three weeks prior to the visit.” The JCC also found this note indicated the “plan” was for Claimant to “return back to full normal activities.” Thus, the JCC found, Claimant “met his burden by satisfying the three prong test sufficiently to invoke the presumption,” and that the Employer “failed to present any evidence of a non-work related cause.” Analysis The presumption afforded by section 112.18 is “only available when a claimant’s ... 2009This court has interpreted “disability” as occurring “ ‘only when [a claimant] becomes actually incapacitated, partially or totally, from performing his employment.’ ” Id. (quoting City of Mary Esther v. McArtor, 902 So.2d 942, 944 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)). | 1 | 1 |
Way v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See also Cardona v. State, 826 So.2d 968, 973 (Fla.2002) (evaluating a Brady claim under the three prong test set forth in Strickler); Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903, 910 (Fla.2000) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Cardona v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See also Cardona v. State, 826 So.2d 968, 973 (Fla.2002) (evaluating a Brady claim under the three prong test set forth in Strickler); Way v. State, 760 So.2d 903, 910 (Fla.2000) (same). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Luban v. Colemangreen2 sentences1992State v. Coleman, 138 Fla. 555 , 189 So. 713, 714 (1939). 1992State v. Coleman, 138 Fla. 555 , 189 So. 713, 714 (1939). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roberts Ex Rel. Estate of Roberts v. Tejada
green
2 sentences2026There, the Court discussed “the three- prong test which applies in cases of juror nondisclosure.” Id. at 339 (citing De La Rosa v. Zequeria, 659 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla. 1995)). 2026“Pursuant to De La Rosa’s first prong, the complaining party must establish not only that the nondisclosed matter was ‘relevant’ — as all prior litigation history is — but also that it is ‘material to jury service in the case.’” Roberts, 814 So. 2d at 339 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Cardenas v. State
green
1 sentence2006Under the three prong test in Bender , "a scientific test result on intoxication is admissible ‘if a proper predicate establishes that: (1) the test was reliable, (2) the test was performed by a qualified operator with proper equipment, and (3) expert testimony was presented concerning the meaning of the test.' ” Cardenas, 867 So.2d at 390 (quoting Bender, 382 So.2d at 699 ). . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Bender
green
1 sentence2006Under the three prong test in Bender , "a scientific test result on intoxication is admissible ‘if a proper predicate establishes that: (1) the test was reliable, (2) the test was performed by a qualified operator with proper equipment, and (3) expert testimony was presented concerning the meaning of the test.' ” Cardenas, 867 So.2d at 390 (quoting Bender, 382 So.2d at 699 ). . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Garnett v. McClellan
green
1 sentence2002This three prong analysis is commonly referred to by our courts as the De La Rosa test. *212 See Garnett v. McClellan, 767 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Young v. State
green
1 sentence1999See De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So.2d 239 (Fla.1995); Young v. State, 720 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Faison v. State
green
1 sentence1996In Faison v. State, 426 So.2d 963 (Fla.1983), the Florida Supreme Court set forth a three prong test to determine if the acts of a defendant are incidental to a primary charge or constitute the separate crime of kidnapping. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Taylor v. Phoenix Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1993In Taylor v. Phoenix Insurance Co., 622 So.2d 506 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), the court utilized the three prong test to determine that uninsured motorist coverage was unavailable to one injured by a bullet emanat- mg from an uninsured motorist vehicle as the incident did not arise out of the use of- the vehicle. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Ex Parte City of Gadsden
green
1 sentence1989A three prong test was adopted for determining what constituted “actual, physical control.” This test was determined to be too restrictive and was abandoned in Cagle v City of Gadsden, 495 So.2d 1144 (Ala. 1986). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Buggs
green
2 sentences1988The court adopted a three prong test, taken from State v. Buggs, 219 Kan. 203 , 547 P.2d 720 (Kan.1976), to determine whether the confinement or movement is sufficient to support the charge: [I]f a taking or confinement is alleged to have been done to facilitate the commission of another crime, to be kidnapping the resulting movement or confinement: (a) Must not be slight, inconsequential and merely incidental to the other crime; (b) Must not be of the kind inherent in the nature of the other crime; and (c) Must have some significance independent of the other crime in that it makes the other c 1988The court adopted a three prong test, taken from State v. Buggs, 219 Kan. 203 , 547 P.2d 720 (Kan.1976), to determine whether the confinement or movement is sufficient to support the charge: [I]f a taking or confinement is alleged to have been done to facilitate the commission of another crime, to be kidnapping the resulting movement or confinement: (a) Must not be slight, inconsequential and merely incidental to the other crime; (b) Must not be of the kind inherent in the nature of the other crime; and (c) Must have some significance independent of the other crime in that it makes the other c | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.