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 1924–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Punta Gorda Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc. v. Green Manor Construction Co.green2 sentences2012Co., 166 So.2d 889, 890 (Fla.1964)); see also Goodman v. Joffe, 57 So.3d 1001, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (reversing a default final judgment because “the trial court should have ruled on [the appellant’s] pending motion to vacate the default entered against her before entering a default final judgment”); Lakeview Auto Sales v. Lott, 753 So.2d 723, 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing a default final judgment because the trial court failed to rule on pending motions to set aside the default). 2011Co., 166 So.2d 889, 890 (Fla.1964); Lakeview Auto Sales v. Lott, 753 So.2d 723, 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing default final judgment because the trial court failed to rule on the pending motions to set aside the default). | 2 | 2 |
Lakeview Auto Sales v. Lottgreen2 sentences2012Co., 166 So.2d 889, 890 (Fla.1964)); see also Goodman v. Joffe, 57 So.3d 1001, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (reversing a default final judgment because “the trial court should have ruled on [the appellant’s] pending motion to vacate the default entered against her before entering a default final judgment”); Lakeview Auto Sales v. Lott, 753 So.2d 723, 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing a default final judgment because the trial court failed to rule on pending motions to set aside the default). 2011Co., 166 So.2d 889, 890 (Fla.1964); Lakeview Auto Sales v. Lott, 753 So.2d 723, 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing default final judgment because the trial court failed to rule on the pending motions to set aside the default). | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2019The former wife responds the trial court correctly adhered to the statutory requirements of section 61.14, Florida Statutes (2018), and competent and substantial evidence supported the court’s finding that the former wife’s change in circumstances were substantial and material, unanticipated, and involuntary. ‘“In considering [alimony] modification, the court can and should take into consideration all factors and contrast the total circumstances at the time of the original order with all the current circumstances.”’ Wilson v. Wilson, 37 So. 3d 877, 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Rentel v. Rentelgreen1 sentence2018See Rentel v. Rentel, 124 So. 3d 993, 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). • Attorney’s Fees Issue The former wife argues the trial court failed to rule on her request for attorney’s fees, temporary and otherwise, under section 61.16, Florida Statutes. | 1 | 1 |
Winfrey v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Winfrey v. State, 226 So. 3d 897, 897-98 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("The trial court failed to rule on Winfrey's claim within ground one that counsel failed to advise him, before he entered an open plea, that the court could impose consecutive sentences. | 1 | 1 |
Gunn v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See O’Neill v. State, 841 So.2d 629, 629 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Shorter v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Shorter v. State, 14 So.3d 1063, 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Goodman v. Goodmangreen1 sentence2012Co., 166 So.2d 889, 890 (Fla.1964)); see also Goodman v. Joffe, 57 So.3d 1001, 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (reversing a default final judgment because “the trial court should have ruled on [the appellant’s] pending motion to vacate the default entered against her before entering a default final judgment”); Lakeview Auto Sales v. Lott, 753 So.2d 723, 724 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (reversing a default final judgment because the trial court failed to rule on pending motions to set aside the default). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson-Gainer v. Gainergreen1 sentence2009Johnson-Gainer v. Gainer, 921 So.2d 798, 798-99 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Mobley v. Mobley, 920 So.2d 97, 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Mobley v. Mobleygreen1 sentence2009Johnson-Gainer v. Gainer, 921 So.2d 798, 798-99 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); Mobley v. Mobley, 920 So.2d 97, 102 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kimbrough v. State
green
1 sentence2004The Fifth District stated that rule 3.800(b) "is self-executing and there is no authority in the rule for either the trial court or the appellate court to extend that time period." Id. at 1256 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Benedict v. Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc.
green
1 sentence2003We remand on this issue to allow the trial court to consider Appellee's conduct throughout the litigation, and instruct the trial court to consider case law released since its order was issued, specifically, Benedict v. Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc., 846 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). *78 As to point 2, the trial court failed to rule expressly on whether the arbitration provision was either procedurally or substantively unconscionable and thereby erred. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Gainesville Health Care Center, Inc. v. Weston
green
1 sentence2003Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to consider and specifically address the issue of unconscionability and to consider a case released since the order was issued, Gainesville Health Care Center, Inc. v. Weston, 857 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (not yet released for publication). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Bayne v. Florida State Board of Dispensing Opticians
green
1 sentence1974Under the controlling precedent of Bayne, supra, appellant was entitled to a direct ruling, vel non, on the validity of the regulation in question. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Hewitt v. State
green
1 sentence1924Section 11 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of Florida provides “in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial,' by a fair and impartial jury, in the county where the crime was committed.” This provision of the Constitution received consideration by this court in the case of Hewitt v. State, 43 Fla. 194 , 30 South. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.