12 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Kinggreen2 sentences2018Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995); SAP Am., Inc. v. Royal Flowers, Inc., 187 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). 2018As we acknowledged in SAP, 187 So. 3d at 946 , “an appellate court lacks certiorari jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence considered by the 2 trial court in granting leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages.” See also Globe, 658 So. 2d at 520 (finding that certiorari may not be granted to review a trial judge’s determination of the sufficiency of the ultimate facts pleading a claim for punitive damages). | 2 | 3 |
Robins v. Colombogreen2 sentences2022Levin v. Pritchard, 258 So. 3d 545, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); accord Robins v. Colombo, 253 So. 3d 94, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). 2021Levin v. Pritchard, 258 So. 3d 545, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); accord Robins v. Colombo, 253 So. 3d 94, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). | 2 | 2 |
Levin v. Pritchard IIIgreen2 sentences2022Levin v. Pritchard, 258 So. 3d 545, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); accord Robins v. Colombo, 253 So. 3d 94, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). 2021Levin v. Pritchard, 258 So. 3d 545, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); accord Robins v. Colombo, 253 So. 3d 94, 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). | 2 | 2 |
Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beachgreen1 sentence2024Applying a de novo standard of review to both claims, see Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) (noting that an order granting summary judgment is reviewed de novo); LoanFlight Lending, LLC v. Wood, 49 Fla. L. | 1 | 1 |
Cat Cay Yacht Club, Inc. v. Diazgreen1 sentence2019The litigation is materially changed, in part, because “[a]llowing a plaintiff to proceed with a punitive damages claim subjects the defendant to financial discovery that would otherwise be off limits” and “potentially subjects the defendant to uninsured losses.” Berezovsky, 194 So. 3d at 520 n.5; see also Cat Cay Yacht Club, Inc. v. Diaz, 264 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (noting “[t]he prospect of intrusive financial discovery following a trial court’s authorization for an amendment to add a claim for punitive damages”). 6 For these reasons, the Third District suggested the Florida Bar’s Ap | 1 | 1 |
Espirito Santo Bank v. Regogreen1 sentence2018Moreover, this court is not permitted to reweigh a trial court’s finding of a sufficient evidentiary basis for a punitive damages claim, and “such a finding could not be disturbed, or even evaluated on certiorari review.” Espirito Santo Bank v. Rego, 990 So. 2d 1088, 1091 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Bistline v. Rogersgreen1 sentence2018See id. at 610 . | 1 | 1 |
Coronado Condominium Ass'n v. Cortegreen1 sentence2016Ass’n v. La Corte, 103 So.3d 239, 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), it is equally clear that an appellate court lacks certiorari jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence considered by the trial court in granting leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. | 1 | 1 |
Ross Dress for Less Virginia, Inc. v. Castrogreen1 sentence2016Globe, 658 So.2d at 520 ; Ross Dress for Less Virginia, Inc. v. Castro, 134 So.3d 511, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). | 1 | 1 |
BEVERLY HEALTH & REHAB. SERVS. v. Meeksgreen1 sentence2009Servs., Inc. v. Meeks, 778 So.2d 322, 323 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding that the scope of review on a petition for writ of certiorari to review the granting of a motion to amend a complaint to add a claim for punitive damages is limited to determining whether the circuit court adhered to the procedural requirements of section 768.72). | 1 | 1 |
Azemco (North America), Inc. v. Browngreen1 sentence1991See Azemco, Inc. v. Brown, 553 So.2d 1245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (motion to amend the complaint to add a defense, made on the eve of trial, should have been granted where there would have been no surprise or prejudice). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hudson v. State
green
2 sentences2018Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995); SAP Am., Inc. v. Royal Flowers, Inc., 187 So. 3d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). 2018As we acknowledged in SAP, 187 So. 3d at 946 , “an appellate court lacks certiorari jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the evidence considered by the 2 trial court in granting leave to amend the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages.” See also Globe, 658 So. 2d at 520 (finding that certiorari may not be granted to review a trial judge’s determination of the sufficiency of the ultimate facts pleading a claim for punitive damages). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
TRG Desert Inn Venture, Ltd. v. Berezovsky
green
1 sentence2019The litigation is materially changed, in part, because “[a]llowing a plaintiff to proceed with a punitive damages claim subjects the defendant to financial discovery that would otherwise be off limits” and “potentially subjects the defendant to uninsured losses.” Berezovsky, 194 So. 3d at 520 n.5; see also Cat Cay Yacht Club, Inc. v. Diaz, 264 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (noting “[t]he prospect of intrusive financial discovery following a trial court’s authorization for an amendment to add a claim for punitive damages”). 6 For these reasons, the Third District suggested the Florida Bar’s Ap | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz
green
2 sentences2016The trial court’s approach is consistent with our precedent in Ruiz, 899 So.2d at 1130 , which allows a bad faith cause of action to be abated. 2016The trial court’s approach is consistent with our precedent in Ruiz, 899 So. 2d at 1130 , which allows a bad faith cause of action to be abated. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Safeco Insurance v. Fridman
green
2 sentences2016Fridman, 117 So.3d at 19-21 . 2016Fridman, 117 So. 3d at 19-21 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Roberto v. State
green
2 sentences2016Also, by including the amount of the jury verdict,in the final judgment, the trial court did precisely what Judge Gross described in Baton as a “preferable approach,” in which execution issues only for the policy limits but the total amount of the damages is included in the final judgment. 150 So.3d at 808 n. 1. 6 Additionally, the trial court did not err by retaining jurisdiction to determine Fridman’s right to amend the complaint to add a claim for bad faith. 2016Also, by including the amount of the jury verdict in the final judgment, the trial court did precisely what Judge Gross described in Paton as a “preferable approach,” in which execution issues only for the policy limits but the - 31 - total amount of the damages is included in the final judgment. 150 So. 3d at 808 n.1.6 Additionally, the trial court did not err by retaining jurisdiction to determine Fridman’s right to amend the complaint to add a claim for bad faith. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Key West Convalescent Center v. Doherty
green
1 sentence1995Key West Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Doherty, 619 So.2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.