12 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1962–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Palmer v. McKesson Corp.green1 sentence2024See Palmer, 7 So. 3d at 563–64 (stating that “where a workers’ compensation claimant seeks to extend or avoid the statute of limitations by operation of section 440.19(2), he or she bears the burden of establishing the exception”). | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Walgreen Co.green1 sentence2011Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(e) provides, “The date of filing is that shown on the face of the paper by the judge’s notation or the clerk’s time stamp, whichever is earlier.” “[T]he file marking is merely evidence of filing but is not essential to the validity of the document.” Strax Rejuvenation & Aesthetics Inst., Inc. v. Shield, 49 So.3d 741, 743 (Fla.2010); see also Cook v. Walgreen Co., 399 So.2d 523, 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (concluding the date shown by the filing stamp is only the presumptive date of filing and that such presumption may be rebutted by other evidence). “[T]he int | 1 | 1 |
Strax Rejuvenation & Aesthetics Institute, Inc. v. Shieldgreen2 sentences2011Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(e) provides, “The date of filing is that shown on the face of the paper by the judge’s notation or the clerk’s time stamp, whichever is earlier.” “[T]he file marking is merely evidence of filing but is not essential to the validity of the document.” Strax Rejuvenation & Aesthetics Inst., Inc. v. Shield, 49 So.3d 741, 743 (Fla.2010); see also Cook v. Walgreen Co., 399 So.2d 523, 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (concluding the date shown by the filing stamp is only the presumptive date of filing and that such presumption may be rebutted by other evidence). “[T]he int 2011Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080(e) provides, “The date of filing is that shown on the face of the paper by the judge’s notation or the clerk’s time stamp, whichever is earlier.” “[T]he file marking is merely evidence of filing but is not essential to the validity of the document.” Strax Rejuvenation & Aesthetics Inst., Inc. v. Shield, 49 So.3d 741, 743 (Fla.2010); see also Cook v. Walgreen Co., 399 So.2d 523, 524 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (concluding the date shown by the filing stamp is only the presumptive date of filing and that such presumption may be rebutted by other evidence). “[T]he int | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pautiergreen1 sentence1990See, e.g., State v. Pautier, supra (once a legally recognized defense had been alleged and supported, the proper procedure would be to hold an in camera hearing); Garcia v. State, supra (trial court required to conduct in camera hearing when defendant files sworn motion alleging facts demonstrating the necessity for disclosure); State v. Zamora, supra (even when technically deficient, if motion comes close to establishing right to disclosure, in camera review is required to determine if the confidential informant's testimony would be helpful to the defense); State v. Acosta, supra , (appropria | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cruz-Govin v. Torres
green
1 sentence2012Id. at 395 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Richardson v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2009Wilson, 490 So.2d at 1040 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Roseboro v. State
green
1 sentence2002Roseboro v. State, 528 So.2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Van Wagner v. State
green
1 sentence2002Roseboro v. State, 528 So.2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Butz v. Economou
green
2 sentences1997Butz *590 v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 , 102 S.Ct. 2690 , 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982). 1997Butz *590 v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 , 102 S.Ct. 2690 , 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Nixon v. Fitzgerald
green
2 sentences1997Butz *590 v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 , 102 S.Ct. 2690 , 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982). 1997Butz *590 v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 , 98 S.Ct. 2894 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 (1978); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 , 102 S.Ct. 2690 , 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
In Re Forfeiture of $62,200 in US Cur.
green
1 sentence1996In re Forfeiture of $62,200, 531 So.2d at 355 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Zamora
green
1 sentence1990See, e.g., State v. Pautier, supra (once a legally recognized defense had been alleged and supported, the proper procedure would be to hold an in camera hearing); Garcia v. State, supra (trial court required to conduct in camera hearing when defendant files sworn motion alleging facts demonstrating the necessity for disclosure); State v. Zamora, supra (even when technically deficient, if motion comes close to establishing right to disclosure, in camera review is required to determine if the confidential informant's testimony would be helpful to the defense); State v. Acosta, supra , (appropria | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Acosta
green
1 sentence1990See, e.g., State v. Pautier, supra (once a legally recognized defense had been alleged and supported, the proper procedure would be to hold an in camera hearing); Garcia v. State, supra (trial court required to conduct in camera hearing when defendant files sworn motion alleging facts demonstrating the necessity for disclosure); State v. Zamora, supra (even when technically deficient, if motion comes close to establishing right to disclosure, in camera review is required to determine if the confidential informant's testimony would be helpful to the defense); State v. Acosta, supra , (appropria | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence1990See, e.g., State v. Pautier, supra (once a legally recognized defense had been alleged and supported, the proper procedure would be to hold an in camera hearing); Garcia v. State, supra (trial court required to conduct in camera hearing when defendant files sworn motion alleging facts demonstrating the necessity for disclosure); State v. Zamora, supra (even when technically deficient, if motion comes close to establishing right to disclosure, in camera review is required to determine if the confidential informant's testimony would be helpful to the defense); State v. Acosta, supra , (appropria | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 97,639 Cal Swenson and Carolyn Swenson v. Richard and Ralph Engelstad
green
1 sentence1988Swenson v. Engelstad, 626 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1980); Doran v. Petroleum Management Corp., 545 F.2d 893 (5th Cir. 1977). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,844 William H. Doran, Jr. v. Petroleum Management Corp., Morton A. Sterling and O. W. Fauntleroy
green
1 sentence1988Swenson v. Engelstad, 626 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1980); Doran v. Petroleum Management Corp., 545 F.2d 893 (5th Cir. 1977). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Town of Miami Springs v. Lawrence
green
1 sentence1971Town of Miami Springs v. Lawrence, Fla. 1958, 102 So.2d 143 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Towles v. Azar
green
2 sentences1968Towles v. Azar, 112 Fla. 405 , 150 So. 734 , (1933); Mayflower, Inc. v. Suskind, Fla. App.1959, 112 So.2d 394 . 1968Towles v. Azar, 112 Fla. 405 , 150 So. 734 , (1933); Mayflower, Inc. v. Suskind, Fla. App.1959, 112 So.2d 394 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Mayflower, Inc. v. Suskind
green
1 sentence1968Towles v. Azar, 112 Fla. 405 , 150 So. 734 , (1933); Mayflower, Inc. v. Suskind, Fla. App.1959, 112 So.2d 394 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
National City Bank v. Shelton Electric Co.
neutral
2 sentences1962McQuillan v. Eckerson, 1913, 178 Mich. 281 , 144 N.W. 510 ; National City Bank v. Shelton Electric Company, 1917, 96 Wash. 74 , 164 P. 933 . 1962McQuillan v. Eckerson, 1913, 178 Mich. 281 , 144 N.W. 510 ; National City Bank v. Shelton Electric Company, 1917, 96 Wash. 74 , 164 P. 933 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
McQuillan v. Eckerson
neutral
2 sentences1962McQuillan v. Eckerson, 1913, 178 Mich. 281 , 144 N.W. 510 ; National City Bank v. Shelton Electric Company, 1917, 96 Wash. 74 , 164 P. 933 . 1962McQuillan v. Eckerson, 1913, 178 Mich. 281 , 144 N.W. 510 ; National City Bank v. Shelton Electric Company, 1917, 96 Wash. 74 , 164 P. 933 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.