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 1 courts 2006–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Del Castillo v. Ralor Pharmacy, Inc.green1 sentence2026Id. at 1263 (citing Del Castillo v. Ralor Pharmacy, Inc., 512 So. 2d 315, 319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“[I]t is . . . improper to render an order in the form of an ordinary final money judgment, while contradictorily and simultaneously leaving an issue for future adjudication.”) (alteration in original)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Guardianship of Morrisongreen1 sentence2024While a foreclosure claim and a claim for damages on the note are not identical causes of action, [c]omplete identity—of parties or causes of action—is not required for a stay; substantial similarity is sufficient. “[I]t is sufficient that the two actions involve a single set of facts and that resolution of the one case will resolve many of the issues involved in the subsequently filed case.” Spacebox Dover, LLC v. LSREF2 Baron LLC, 112 So. 3d 751, 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (second alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting In re Guardianship of Morrison, 972 So. 2d 905, 910 (Fla. 2d DCA | 1 | 1 |
Spacebox Dover, LLC v. LSREF2 Baron LLCgreen1 sentence2024While a foreclosure claim and a claim for damages on the note are not identical causes of action, [c]omplete identity—of parties or causes of action—is not required for a stay; substantial similarity is sufficient. “[I]t is sufficient that the two actions involve a single set of facts and that resolution of the one case will resolve many of the issues involved in the subsequently filed case.” Spacebox Dover, LLC v. LSREF2 Baron LLC, 112 So. 3d 751, 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (second alteration in original) (citation omitted) (quoting In re Guardianship of Morrison, 972 So. 2d 905, 910 (Fla. 2d DCA | 1 | 1 |
Arsali v. Chase Home Finance LLCgreen1 sentence2018The foreclosure claim shall, if tried, be tried to the court without a jury."). 121 So. 3d 511, 517 (Fla. 2013) (first internal citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Gottschamer v. August, Thompson, Sherr, Clark & Shafer, PCgreen1 sentence2017See Gottschamer v. August, Thompson, Sherr, Clark & Shafer, P.C., 438 So.2d 408, 409 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Gafoor Jaffer and Nina Jaffer v. Chase Home Finance, LLCgreen1 sentence2017See Jaffer, 155 So.3d at 1202 ; Knight, 90 So.3d at 825-26 ; Pitts, 561 So.2d at 301 ; David, 461 So.2d at 95 . | 1 | 1 |
Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beachgreen1 sentence2014See Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla.2000) (summary judgment is proper only if the record shows no genuine issue of material fact). | 1 | 1 |
Peterson v. Affordable Homes of Palm Beach, Inc.green1 sentence2014We reverse the amended final judgment of foreclosure as the trial court should not have entered a final order while the appellants’ counterclaim remained pending. 1 See Peterson v. Affordable Homes of Palm Beach, Inc., 65 So.3d 112, 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (holding that summary judgment on a foreclosure claim was premature while the mortgagor’s fraud counterclaim was still pending); see also Woods v. Huntington Fed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Evan W. Turk v. Meredith H. Truk
green
2 sentences2016Mellon, 189 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) and Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 155 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).6 The Holt court held that the lender failed to introduce evidence that it had complied with the mortgage’s notice provision. 2016Mellon, 189 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) and Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 155 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).6 The Holt court held that the lender failed to introduce evidence that it had complied with the mortgage’s notice provision. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Coates v. State
green
2 sentences2016Mellon, 189 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) and Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 155 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).6 The Holt court held that the lender failed to introduce evidence that it had complied with the mortgage’s notice provision. 2016Mellon, 189 So. 3d 359 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) and Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 155 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).6 The Holt court held that the lender failed to introduce evidence that it had complied with the mortgage’s notice provision. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Hughes v. FIRST FEDERAL SAV. AND LOAN
green
2 sentences2009Sav. & Loan Assoc., 621 So.2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (finding that an order requiring a party to deposit mortgage payments into the registry of the court as they accrued, pending resolution of the foreclosure claim, was reviewable as an injunction under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(B)). 2009Sav. & Loan Assoc., 621 So.2d 557 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (finding that an order requiring a party to deposit mortgage payments into the registry of the court as they accrued, pending resolution of the foreclosure claim, was reviewable as an injunction under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(B)). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
David v. Sun Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n
green
1 sentence2017See Jaffer, 155 So.3d at 1202 ; Knight, 90 So.3d at 825-26 ; Pitts, 561 So.2d at 301 ; David, 461 So.2d at 95 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Pitts v. Pastore
green
1 sentence2017See Jaffer, 155 So.3d at 1202 ; Knight, 90 So.3d at 825-26 ; Pitts, 561 So.2d at 301 ; David, 461 So.2d at 95 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Munguia v. Miami-Dade County School Board
green
1 sentence2017See Jaffer, 155 So.3d at 1202 ; Knight, 90 So.3d at 825-26 ; Pitts, 561 So.2d at 301 ; David, 461 So.2d at 95 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Brown v. Giffen Industries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006E.g., Brown v. Giffen Indus., Inc., 281 So.2d 897 (Fla.1973); Scott v. Johnson, 386 So.2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Scott v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2006E.g., Brown v. Giffen Indus., Inc., 281 So.2d 897 (Fla.1973); Scott v. Johnson, 386 So.2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.