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.
12 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Lutzgreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., State v. Londo, 215 Ariz. 72 , 158 P.3d 201 (2006) (applying “private safety exception” or “rescue doctrine” where suspect is reasonably considered to be in urgent need of rescue to avoid serious injury or death due to swallowing crack cocaine); United States v. Lutz, 207 F.Supp.2d 1247, 1258 (D.Kan.2002) (recognizing safety is more important than Miranda where officers saw defendant chewing and swallowing plastic bag commonly associated with drug packaging); People v. Stevenson, 51 Cal.App.4th 1234 , 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 880 (1996) (finding police could question suspect who admitted | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stevensongreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Londo, 215 Ariz. 72 , 158 P.3d 201 (2006) (applying “private safety exception” or “rescue doctrine” where suspect is reasonably considered to be in urgent need of rescue to avoid serious injury or death due to swallowing crack cocaine); United States v. Lutz, 207 F.Supp.2d 1247, 1258 (D.Kan.2002) (recognizing safety is more important than Miranda where officers saw defendant chewing and swallowing plastic bag commonly associated with drug packaging); People v. Stevenson, 51 Cal.App.4th 1234 , 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 880 (1996) (finding police could question suspect who admitted 2010See, e.g., State v. Londo, 215 Ariz. 72 , 158 P.3d 201 (2006) (applying “private safety exception” or “rescue doctrine” where suspect is reasonably considered to be in urgent need of rescue to avoid serious injury or death due to swallowing crack cocaine); United States v. Lutz, 207 F.Supp.2d 1247, 1258 (D.Kan.2002) (recognizing safety is more important than Miranda where officers saw defendant chewing and swallowing plastic bag commonly associated with drug packaging); People v. Stevenson, 51 Cal.App.4th 1234 , 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 880 (1996) (finding police could question suspect who admitted | 1 | 1 |
State v. Londogreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., State v. Londo, 215 Ariz. 72 , 158 P.3d 201 (2006) (applying “private safety exception” or “rescue doctrine” where suspect is reasonably considered to be in urgent need of rescue to avoid serious injury or death due to swallowing crack cocaine); United States v. Lutz, 207 F.Supp.2d 1247, 1258 (D.Kan.2002) (recognizing safety is more important than Miranda where officers saw defendant chewing and swallowing plastic bag commonly associated with drug packaging); People v. Stevenson, 51 Cal.App.4th 1234 , 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 880 (1996) (finding police could question suspect who admitted 2010See, e.g., State v. Londo, 215 Ariz. 72 , 158 P.3d 201 (2006) (applying “private safety exception” or “rescue doctrine” where suspect is reasonably considered to be in urgent need of rescue to avoid serious injury or death due to swallowing crack cocaine); United States v. Lutz, 207 F.Supp.2d 1247, 1258 (D.Kan.2002) (recognizing safety is more important than Miranda where officers saw defendant chewing and swallowing plastic bag commonly associated with drug packaging); People v. Stevenson, 51 Cal.App.4th 1234 , 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 878, 880 (1996) (finding police could question suspect who admitted | 1 | 1 |
City of Lakeland v. Chase National Companygreen2 sentences2006Taking the lawsuit as they found itor as it found themthey asked only to be heard before their rights were adjudicated. [11] *1175 "The provision for class suits is not a rule of law to be blindly followed without regard to the companion principle of law that no one can be bound by a judgment affecting his property without his day in court." City of Lakeland v. Chase Nat'l Co., 159 Fla. 783 , 32 So.2d 833, 838 (1947). 2006Taking the lawsuit as they found itor as it found themthey asked only to be heard before their rights were adjudicated. [11] *1175 "The provision for class suits is not a rule of law to be blindly followed without regard to the companion principle of law that no one can be bound by a judgment affecting his property without his day in court." City of Lakeland v. Chase Nat'l Co., 159 Fla. 783 , 32 So.2d 833, 838 (1947). | 1 | 1 |
Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboygreen1 sentence2006See also Port Royal, Inc. v. Conboy, 154 So.2d 734, 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). | 1 | 1 |
Joshua v. City of Gainesvillegreen1 sentence2005The Florida Civil Rights Act is a remedial statute that the Legislature has expressly provided is to be "liberally construed to further the general purposes" of the Act and the particular provisions involved. § 760.01(3), Fla. Stat. (2003); see also Woodham v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 829 So.2d 891, 897 (Fla. 2002) (stating that "we are guided by the stated statutory purpose of liberally construing the [Act] in favor of a remedy for those who are victims of discrimination, and the companion principle that requires us to narrowly construe statutory provisions that restrict acces | 1 | 1 |
Woodham v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Fla., Inc.green1 sentence2005The Florida Civil Rights Act is a remedial statute that the Legislature has expressly provided is to be "liberally construed to further the general purposes" of the Act and the particular provisions involved. § 760.01(3), Fla. Stat. (2003); see also Woodham v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., 829 So.2d 891, 897 (Fla. 2002) (stating that "we are guided by the stated statutory purpose of liberally construing the [Act] in favor of a remedy for those who are victims of discrimination, and the companion principle that requires us to narrowly construe statutory provisions that restrict acces | 1 | 1 |
Griffin v. Workmangreen1 sentence1985See Griffin v. Workman, 73 So.2d 844 (Fla. 1954); Lindy's of Orlando, Inc. v. United Electric Co., 239 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 242 So.2d 463 (Fla. 1970); Haines v. Leonard L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hopson v. Sanborn
neutral
2 sentences1980Sutton v. Capetanidis, Fla.App., 97 So.2d 200 ; De Witt v. Miami Transit Company, Fla., 95 So.2d 898 ; Boole v. Florida Power & Light Co., 147 Fla. 589 , 3 So.2d 335 . 1958Sutton v. Capetanidis, Fla.App., 97 So.2d 200 ; De Witt v. Miami Transit Company, Fla., 95 So.2d 898 ; Boole v. Florida Power & Light Co., 147 Fla. 589 , 3 So.2d 335 . | 2 | 1958–1980 |
Boole v. Florida Power & Light Co.
neutral
2 sentences1980Sutton v. Capetanidis, Fla.App., 97 So.2d 200 ; De Witt v. Miami Transit Company, Fla., 95 So.2d 898 ; Boole v. Florida Power & Light Co., 147 Fla. 589 , 3 So.2d 335 . 1980Sutton v. Capetanidis, Fla.App., 97 So.2d 200 ; De Witt v. Miami Transit Company, Fla., 95 So.2d 898 ; Boole v. Florida Power & Light Co., 147 Fla. 589 , 3 So.2d 335 . | 2 | 1958–1980 |
De Witt v. Miami Transit Company
green
2 sentences1980Sutton v. Capetanidis, Fla.App., 97 So.2d 200 ; De Witt v. Miami Transit Company, Fla., 95 So.2d 898 ; Boole v. Florida Power & Light Co., 147 Fla. 589 , 3 So.2d 335 . 1958Sutton v. Capetanidis, Fla.App., 97 So.2d 200 ; De Witt v. Miami Transit Company, Fla., 95 So.2d 898 ; Boole v. Florida Power & Light Co., 147 Fla. 589 , 3 So.2d 335 . | 2 | 1958–1980 |
Flo-Sun, Inc. v. Kirk
green
1 sentence2025It applies when a claim turns on issues that “a regulatory scheme” places “within the special competence of an administrative body.” Id. at 190 (quoting Flo-Sun, Inc. v. Kirk, 783 So. 2d 1029 , 1037 n.5 (Fla. 2001)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Riverwalk at Sunrise Homeowners Ass'n v. Biscayne Painting Corp.
green
1 sentence2017Riverwalk at Sunrise Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Biscayne Painting Corp., 199 So.3d 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Young v. State
green
1 sentence2013Further, we find the case of Hooks v. State, 956 So.2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), to be most instructive. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. TG
green
1 sentence2002Recently, in State v. T.G., 800 So.2d 204 (Fla.2001), we asked the Committee to consider whether Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) should apply to juveniles or whether a companion rule for juvenile proceedings should be created. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Lindy's of Orlando, Inc. v. United Electric Co.
green
1 sentence1985See Griffin v. Workman, 73 So.2d 844 (Fla. 1954); Lindy's of Orlando, Inc. v. United Electric Co., 239 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 242 So.2d 463 (Fla. 1970); Haines v. Leonard L. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Reitz v. Atlantic National Bank
neutral
1 sentence1985See Griffin v. Workman, 73 So.2d 844 (Fla. 1954); Lindy's of Orlando, Inc. v. United Electric Co., 239 So.2d 69 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 242 So.2d 463 (Fla. 1970); Haines v. Leonard L. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
United States v. Agurs
green
2 sentences1980A companion rule, arising out of United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), is applied where no such request is made or where there is a general request for exculpatory evidence. 1980A companion rule, arising out of United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 , 96 S.Ct. 2392 , 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976), is applied where no such request is made or where there is a general request for exculpatory evidence. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Shulman v. Miller
green
1 sentence1961In holding that the record on summary proceedings was sufficient to present a genuine question as to whether the release was executed under a bona fide factual mistake, the court said that such holding did "not do violence to the companion rule that unknown or unexpected consequences of known injuries will not invalidate a release." [Fla.App. 1958, 107 So.2d 274 ]. | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.