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.
13 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1932–2011 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
South Carolina Ins. Co. v. Kokaygreen2 sentences1983See South Carolina Insurance Company v. Kokay, 398 So.2d 1355 (Fla.1981). 1982See South Carolina Insurance Company v. Kokay, 398 So.2d 1355 (Fla.1981); Stephan v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty, 384 So.2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); cf., Cox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 378 So.2d 330, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (stacking allowed where policies issued to entirely different named insureds). | 2 | 2 |
Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Cooperstockgreen1 sentence1988See Nationwide Insurance Company v. Cooperstock, 472 So.2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Vigilant Insurance Company v. Kelps, 372 So.2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); and *800 Cruger v. Allstate Insurance Company, 162 So.2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). | 1 | 1 |
Herman v. Stategreen1 sentence1985United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); see also Herman v. State, 396 So.2d 222 (Fla.4th DCA 1981); Gosman v. State, 383 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.green1 sentence1982See South Carolina Insurance Company v. Kokay, 398 So.2d 1355 (Fla.1981); Stephan v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty, 384 So.2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); cf., Cox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 378 So.2d 330, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (stacking allowed where policies issued to entirely different named insureds). | 1 | 1 |
Cortes v. Stategreen2 sentences1966See Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589 , 185 So. 323 (1938), and Ingram v. Prescott, 111 Fla. 320 , 149 So. 369 (1933). 1966See Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589 , 185 So. 323 (1938), and Ingram v. Prescott, 111 Fla. 320 , 149 So. 369 (1933). | 1 | 1 |
Ingram v. Prescottgreen2 sentences1966See Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589 , 185 So. 323 (1938), and Ingram v. Prescott, 111 Fla. 320 , 149 So. 369 (1933). 1966See Cortes v. State, 135 Fla. 589 , 185 So. 323 (1938), and Ingram v. Prescott, 111 Fla. 320 , 149 So. 369 (1933). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pathway Financial v. MIAMI INTERN. REALTY
green
1 sentence2011Having elected in this instance to claim lost profits, 11 Net Results can recover only those prospective profits “which would have been possible only if the contract would have been, fully performed by the [non-breaching party].” Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sierra
green
1 sentence1999Co. v. Sierra, 705 So.2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Perez v. Allstate Ins. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Cruger v. Allstate Insurance Company
green
1 sentence1988See Nationwide Insurance Company v. Cooperstock, 472 So.2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Vigilant Insurance Company v. Kelps, 372 So.2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); and *800 Cruger v. Allstate Insurance Company, 162 So.2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Vigilant Ins. Co. v. Kelps
green
1 sentence1988See Nationwide Insurance Company v. Cooperstock, 472 So.2d 547 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Vigilant Insurance Company v. Kelps, 372 So.2d 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); and *800 Cruger v. Allstate Insurance Company, 162 So.2d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
United States v. Agurs
green
2 sentences1985United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); see also Herman v. State, 396 So.2d 222 (Fla.4th DCA 1981); Gosman v. State, 383 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). 1985United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); see also Herman v. State, 396 So.2d 222 (Fla.4th DCA 1981); Gosman v. State, 383 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Gosman v. State
neutral
1 sentence1985United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); see also Herman v. State, 396 So.2d 222 (Fla.4th DCA 1981); Gosman v. State, 383 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Jackson v. Hatch
green
1 sentence1984Jackson v. Hatch, 288 So.2d 564 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1974) (interpreting Section 713.29); Kittel v. Kittel, 210 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1967). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Kittel v. Kittel
green
1 sentence1984Jackson v. Hatch, 288 So.2d 564 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1974) (interpreting Section 713.29); Kittel v. Kittel, 210 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1967). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Lowry v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
neutral
1 sentence1984The court concluded that “to permit stacking in this instance would be in violation of Section 627.4132, Florida Statutes (1977), which prevents stacking separate policies involving the same named insured.” 421 So.2d at 669 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Stephan v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty
neutral
1 sentence1982See South Carolina Insurance Company v. Kokay, 398 So.2d 1355 (Fla.1981); Stephan v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty, 384 So.2d 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); cf., Cox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 378 So.2d 330, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (stacking allowed where policies issued to entirely different named insureds). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
The Florida Bar v. Rubin
green
1 sentence1979Florida Bar v. Rubin, 362 So.2d 12 (Fla.1978). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Santiemmo v. Days Transfer, Inc.
green
1 sentence1976Penny v. Thurman, 34 Ohio App.2d 190 , 63 Ohio Ops.2d 319, 297 N.E.2d 555 (1972); Satiemmo v. Days Transfer, Inc., 9 Ill. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Penny v. Thurman
green
2 sentences1976Penny v. Thurman, 34 Ohio App.2d 190 , 63 Ohio Ops.2d 319, 297 N.E.2d 555 (1972); Satiemmo v. Days Transfer, Inc., 9 Ill. 1976Penny v. Thurman, 34 Ohio App.2d 190 , 63 Ohio Ops.2d 319, 297 N.E.2d 555 (1972); Satiemmo v. Days Transfer, Inc., 9 Ill. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Florida Greyhound Lines v. Jones
green
1 sentence1967Purvis, out of the courtroom and found him to be argumentative, somewhat irrational and of such mental attitude and physical appearance that the jury might be influenced." In Florida Greyhound Lines v. Jones, Fla. 1952, 60 So.2d 396 , the Supreme Court of Florida was faced with the propriety of a proceeding where the trial court permitted the appearance of the plaintiff "* * * before the jury, when she was on a stretcher and, apparently, in a weak, sickened and stupified condition and attended by a nurse and a hospital attendant." There the Court said: "* * * One who institutes an action is en | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Muller v. Ocala Foundry & Machine Works
green
1 sentence1932Muller v. Ocala Foundry Machine Works, 49 Fla. 189 , 38 So.2d 64 ; Globe Theatre Co. v. Watt, 62 Fla. 196 , 57 So.2d 201 . | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Globe Theatre & Amusement Co. v. Watt
neutral
1 sentence1932Muller v. Ocala Foundry Machine Works, 49 Fla. 189 , 38 So.2d 64 ; Globe Theatre Co. v. Watt, 62 Fla. 196 , 57 So.2d 201 . | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.