13 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1934–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bourne v. State Bank of Orlando & Trust Co.green2 sentences1989Syms v. McRitchie, 187 F.2d 915 (5th Cir.1951); Drummond Title Co. v. Weinroth, 77 So.2d 606, 610 (Fla.1955); Bourne v. State Bank & Trust Co., 106 Fla. 46 , 142 So. 810 (Fla.1932); Sammis v. L’Engle, 19 Fla. 800, 810 (1883); Azelton v. Finch, 390 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). 1989Syms v. McRitchie, 187 F.2d 915 (5th Cir.1951); Drummond Title Co. v. Weinroth, 77 So.2d 606, 610 (Fla.1955); Bourne v. State Bank & Trust Co., 106 Fla. 46 , 142 So. 810 (Fla.1932); Sammis v. L’Engle, 19 Fla. 800, 810 (1883); Azelton v. Finch, 390 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). | 1 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2022It appears from the record that West’s cross claim against co-defendant Black Rain Capital Investment LLC (“Black Rain”) remains pending and unadjudicated. 2 summary foreclosure judgment. 2 While we have held that a trial court reversibly errs when its denial of a motion to assert a compulsory counterclaim leaves a defendant without a remedy, Fuente v. S. Ocean Transport, Inc., 933 So. 2d 651, 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), we also have held that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to amend pleadings when the motion was filed shortly before a summary judgment hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Prewitt Enterprises, LLC v. Tommy Constantine Racing, LLC, and Tommy Constantine, a/k/a Thomas Constantine, individuallygreen1 sentence2021See Prewitt Enters., LLC v. Tommy Constantine Racing, LLC, 185 So. 3d 566, 569 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Miranda v. Home Depot, Inc.green2 sentences2017In Miranda v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., the plaintiff, in attempting to reach a planter on a display shelf which was blocked by a ladder, “projected her head and shoulders and upper torso through the ladder,” and after standing up, hit a cross bar on the ladder and injured her right eye, leading to her suit against Home Depot. 604 So. 2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). 2017In Miranda v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., the plaintiff, in attempting to reach a planter on a display shelf which was blocked by a ladder, “projected her head and shoulders and upper torso through the ladder,” and after standing up, hit a cross bar on the ladder and injured her right eye, leading to her suit against Home Depot. 604 So.2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Drummond Title Company v. Weinrothgreen1 sentence1989Syms v. McRitchie, 187 F.2d 915 (5th Cir.1951); Drummond Title Co. v. Weinroth, 77 So.2d 606, 610 (Fla.1955); Bourne v. State Bank & Trust Co., 106 Fla. 46 , 142 So. 810 (Fla.1932); Sammis v. L’Engle, 19 Fla. 800, 810 (1883); Azelton v. Finch, 390 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). | 1 | 1 |
Sammis v. L'Englegreen1 sentence1989Syms v. McRitchie, 187 F.2d 915 (5th Cir.1951); Drummond Title Co. v. Weinroth, 77 So.2d 606, 610 (Fla.1955); Bourne v. State Bank & Trust Co., 106 Fla. 46 , 142 So. 810 (Fla.1932); Sammis v. L’Engle, 19 Fla. 800, 810 (1883); Azelton v. Finch, 390 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). | 1 | 1 |
Azelton v. Finchgreen1 sentence1989Syms v. McRitchie, 187 F.2d 915 (5th Cir.1951); Drummond Title Co. v. Weinroth, 77 So.2d 606, 610 (Fla.1955); Bourne v. State Bank & Trust Co., 106 Fla. 46 , 142 So. 810 (Fla.1932); Sammis v. L’Engle, 19 Fla. 800, 810 (1883); Azelton v. Finch, 390 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). | 1 | 1 |
Lovett and Lovett v. Lovettgreen1 sentence1982At the outset we are surprised by a paucity of Florida case law which flatly tells us whether or not cross claims against co-defendants require service by summons, although an old Supreme Court holding in Lovett v. Lovett, 112 So. 768, 775, 776 (Fla. 1927) might appear to prescribe it. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Banning
green
2 sentences1978Unigard Insurance Company v. Durrance, 276 So.2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and Williams v. Banning, 259 So.2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), and relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court, await its determination of the cross claim, and then consider any appeal from that determination together with the appeal from the final judgment. 1978And cf. Williams v. Banning, 259 So.2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) (where an insured contests his policy limits and no proof of those limits is in evidence, the filing of a cross claim is the proper procedure). | 2 | 1978–1978 |
State Ex Rel. American Home Ins. Co. v. Seay
green
1 sentence2013In a footnote, this court noted, however, that “we do not determine here that a cross claim is authorized in the present posture of this case.” Id. at 823 n. 2. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Syms v. McRitchie
green
1 sentence1989Syms v. McRitchie, 187 F.2d 915 (5th Cir.1951); Drummond Title Co. v. Weinroth, 77 So.2d 606, 610 (Fla.1955); Bourne v. State Bank & Trust Co., 106 Fla. 46 , 142 So. 810 (Fla.1932); Sammis v. L’Engle, 19 Fla. 800, 810 (1883); Azelton v. Finch, 390 So.2d 119, 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Dunham v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences1981Jackson v. Dutton, 46 Fla. 513 , 35 So. 74 (1903); Dunham v. Smith, 97 Fla. 386 , 120 So. 761 (1929); and Riggs v. East Coast Grocery Co., 101 Fla. 1048 , 132 So. 693 (1931). 1981Jackson v. Dutton, 46 Fla. 513 , 35 So. 74 (1903); Dunham v. Smith, 97 Fla. 386 , 120 So. 761 (1929); and Riggs v. East Coast Grocery Co., 101 Fla. 1048 , 132 So. 693 (1931). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Hooten v. Fed. Land Bk. of Columbia
neutral
2 sentences1981Jackson v. Dutton, 46 Fla. 513 , 35 So. 74 (1903); Dunham v. Smith, 97 Fla. 386 , 120 So. 761 (1929); and Riggs v. East Coast Grocery Co., 101 Fla. 1048 , 132 So. 693 (1931). 1981Jackson v. Dutton, 46 Fla. 513 , 35 So. 74 (1903); Dunham v. Smith, 97 Fla. 386 , 120 So. 761 (1929); and Riggs v. East Coast Grocery Co., 101 Fla. 1048 , 132 So. 693 (1931). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Jackson v. Dutton
neutral
1 sentence1981Jackson v. Dutton, 46 Fla. 513 , 35 So. 74 (1903); Dunham v. Smith, 97 Fla. 386 , 120 So. 761 (1929); and Riggs v. East Coast Grocery Co., 101 Fla. 1048 , 132 So. 693 (1931). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Groner v. Underwriters Insurance Co.
neutral
1 sentence1978NOTES [1] That motion has not been ruled on by the trial court and no final judgment has yet been entered against American Home Insurance Company. [2] Since the matter has not been presented for our determination we do not determine here that a cross claim is authorized in the present posture of this case. [3] In Groner v. Underwriters Insurance Company, 179 So.2d 123 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1965) a cross claim was decided after a summary final judgment was appealed. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State ex rel. Unigard Insurance v. Durrance
neutral
2 sentences1978Unigard Insurance Company v. Durrance, 276 So.2d 112 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and Williams v. Banning, 259 So.2d 725 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), and relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court, await its determination of the cross claim, and then consider any appeal from that determination together with the appeal from the final judgment. 1978When a notice of appeal has been timely filed jurisdiction of the cause then vests absolutely in the appellate Court until such appeal has been finally disposed of by affirmance, reversal, or dismissal; subject only, of course, to a mere temporary relinquishment of jurisdiction for some specified, exceptional purpose, such as here." [Cases omitted.] Having concluded that the trial court is without jurisdiction, to proceed with the cross claim while the appeal from the final judgment is pending, we also decline to follow the procedure suggested by the Second District Court of Appeal in Durrance | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Bailey v. Crum
green
2 sentences1964In Bailey v. Crum, 120 Fla. 36 , 162 So. 356 , our Supreme Court in effect held that a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land need not be brought in the County where the land lies. 1964In Bailey v. Crum, 120 Fla. 36 , 162 So. 356 , our Supreme Court in effect held that a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land need not be brought in the County where the land lies. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Koon v. Koon
green
2 sentences1959Under the first ground, the appellant relies upon the case of Koon v. Koon, 55 Fla. 834 , 46 So. 633 , 635, wherein the Supreme Court of Florida said: “It would seem that as a general rule a cross-bill in a partition suit is neither necessary nor proper.” There appears to be no statutory prohibition against the filing of a cross claim or an answer seeking affirmative relief in a partition action. 1959Under the first ground, the appellant relies upon the case of Koon v. Koon, 55 Fla. 834 , 46 So. 633 , 635, wherein the Supreme Court of Florida said: “It would seem that as a general rule a cross-bill in a partition suit is neither necessary nor proper.” There appears to be no statutory prohibition against the filing of a cross claim or an answer seeking affirmative relief in a partition action. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Zigler, Admrx. v. Erler Corp.
green
2 sentences1934Zigler v. Erler Corp., 102 Fla. 981 , 136 Sou. 1934Zigler v. Erler Corp., 102 Fla. 981 , 136 Sou. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.