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 1968–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berger v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2020The Third District also invoked the “elementary” principle that “[t]here must be some person capable of suing or being sued upon the claim in order for the statute [of limitations] to begin to run.” Id. (quoting Berger v. Jackson, 23 So. 2d 265, 269 (Fla. 1945)). | 1 | 1 |
MacAluso v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Roman, 163 So.3d, at 750-51 (holding that trial court failed to make, proper competency determination where defendant’s competency was mentioned by defense counsel at a suppression hearing but no competency hearing was .held and the parties did not stipulate to the trial court’s relying on expert reports concluding that defendant had regained competency); S.B. v. State, 134 So.3d 528, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (holding that trial court erred in finding defendant competent where defense counsel “stipulate^]” to competency based on finding in expert’s report, State also stipulated to competenc | 1 | 1 |
Shakes v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Shakes v. State, 185 So.3d 679, 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (“To the extent that the trial court relied on defense counsel’s representation that Shakes was competent, such reliance is not permitted.”). | 1 | 1 |
S.B. v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Roman, 163 So.3d, at 750-51 (holding that trial court failed to make, proper competency determination where defendant’s competency was mentioned by defense counsel at a suppression hearing but no competency hearing was .held and the parties did not stipulate to the trial court’s relying on expert reports concluding that defendant had regained competency); S.B. v. State, 134 So.3d 528, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (holding that trial court erred in finding defendant competent where defense counsel “stipulate^]” to competency based on finding in expert’s report, State also stipulated to competenc | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Roman, 163 So.3d, at 750-51 (holding that trial court failed to make, proper competency determination where defendant’s competency was mentioned by defense counsel at a suppression hearing but no competency hearing was .held and the parties did not stipulate to the trial court’s relying on expert reports concluding that defendant had regained competency); S.B. v. State, 134 So.3d 528, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (holding that trial court erred in finding defendant competent where defense counsel “stipulate^]” to competency based on finding in expert’s report, State also stipulated to competenc | 1 | 1 |
Labrandon Bodison v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2016See Roman, 163 So.3d, at 750-51 (holding that trial court failed to make, proper competency determination where defendant’s competency was mentioned by defense counsel at a suppression hearing but no competency hearing was .held and the parties did not stipulate to the trial court’s relying on expert reports concluding that defendant had regained competency); S.B. v. State, 134 So.3d 528, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (holding that trial court erred in finding defendant competent where defense counsel “stipulate^]” to competency based on finding in expert’s report, State also stipulated to competenc | 1 | 1 |
Swindle v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Ward, 919 So.2d at 464 . | 1 | 1 |
Flippen v. Stategreen2 sentences2012In holding otherwise, the court relied on rule 69J-2.003(10) which states that, if an insured chooses not to participate in mediation or if the mediation is unsuccessful, the “insured may choose to proceed under the appraisal process set forth in the insured’s insurance policy, by litigation, or any other dispute resolution procedure available under Florida law.” We adopt the reasoning of the Fifth District in State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Unlimited Restoration Specialists, Inc., 84 So.3d 390 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), that reliance on such an administrative rule is error in that it improperly 2012See id. at 394-95 (holding that section 627.7015 only contemplates a waiver of an appraisal when an insurer fails to notify its insured of the right to mediation or when the insurer itself requests mediation and the mediation is unsuccessful); see also Johnson v. Nationwide Mut. | 1 | 1 |
BRUCE H. LYNN, MD, PA v. Millergreen1 sentence2005In V.H., this court relied on the principle articulated in Tate to reverse an indigent juvenile's commitment where it was clear from the record that the trial court chose commitment rather than community control only because the juvenile was unable to pay restitution. 498 So.2d at 1011. | 1 | 1 |
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Proceduregreen1 sentence2002See Amendments to Fla. Rules of Civil Procedure, 773 So.2d 1098, 1099 (Fla.2000). | 1 | 1 |
Hawkins v. Champion Intern. Corp.green1 sentence1997In Hawkins v. Champion International Corp., 662 So.2d 1005, 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), this court relied on the rule pronounced in Hall v. Holland, stating: A person who is having work performed on his premises by an independent contractor and has actual or constructive knowledge of latent or potential dangers on the premises owes a duty to give warning of, or use ordinary care to furnish protection against, such dangers to employees of the contractor and subcontractor who are without actual or constructive notice of the dangers. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Drake v. ISLAND COMMUNITY CHURCH
green
1 sentence2020The Third District also invoked the “elementary” principle that “[t]here must be some person capable of suing or being sued upon the claim in order for the statute [of limitations] to begin to run.” Id. (quoting Berger v. Jackson, 23 So. 2d 265, 269 (Fla. 1945)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bernard J. Dougherty v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2016See Roman, 163 So.3d, at 750-51 (holding that trial court failed to make, proper competency determination where defendant’s competency was mentioned by defense counsel at a suppression hearing but no competency hearing was .held and the parties did not stipulate to the trial court’s relying on expert reports concluding that defendant had regained competency); S.B. v. State, 134 So.3d 528, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (holding that trial court erred in finding defendant competent where defense counsel “stipulate^]” to competency based on finding in expert’s report, State also stipulated to competenc | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Snowden
green
1 sentence2008The court relied on the principle presented in State v. Snowden, 345 So.2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), that the admissibility of a spontaneous statement requires that the factors of contemporaneity and spontaneity relate to the perceived event so as to preclude any deliberation or fabrication. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
De Jonge v. Oregon
green
2 sentences2004"However, a conviction on a charge not made by the indictment or information is a denial of due process of law." Id. at 818 (citing Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 , 57 S.Ct. 255 , 81 L.Ed. 278 (1937)). 2004"However, a conviction on a charge not made by the indictment or information is a denial of due process of law." Id. at 818 (citing Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 , 57 S.Ct. 255 , 81 L.Ed. 278 (1937)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Thornhill v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2004"However, a conviction on a charge not made by the indictment or information is a denial of due process of law." Id. at 818 (citing Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 , 57 S.Ct. 255 , 81 L.Ed. 278 (1937)). 2004"However, a conviction on a charge not made by the indictment or information is a denial of due process of law." Id. at 818 (citing Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 , 57 S.Ct. 255 , 81 L.Ed. 278 (1937)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Gray
green
1 sentence2004"However, a conviction on a charge not made by the indictment or information is a denial of due process of law." Id. at 818 (citing Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 , 60 S.Ct. 736 , 84 L.Ed. 1093 (1940); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 , 57 S.Ct. 255 , 81 L.Ed. 278 (1937)). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Lackos v. State
green
1 sentence1999Similarly, in Lackos v. State, 339 So.2d 217 (Fla.1976), this Court upheld the *1005 amendment of an information to change the name of the victim from "Remington Electric Razors, Inc." to "Remington Electric Shavers, a Division of Sperry Rand Corporation." Although that case involved the amendment of an information rather than an indictment, this Court relied on rule 3.140( o ) to find that the defect was not fatal to the information because there had been no showing of prejudice to the accused. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Simmons v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence1982The court relied on the principle of priority and noted that when it was applied between concurrent jurisdictions, it was based on "wisdom and justice, to prevent vexation, oppression and harassment, to prevent unnecessary litigation, [and] to prevent a multiplicity of [law] suits...." 214 P.2d at 849 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Bedami v. State
green
1 sentence1968In Bedami v. State, Fla.App. 1959, 112 So.2d 284 , it was held that the defendant's application, made during trial for a subpoena duces tecum to compel the production of the stenographic notes and transcription of a statement previously made by a prosecution witness to the county solicitor, was properly denied. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.