12 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co.green2 sentences2004Co., 674 So.2d 86, 94 (Fla. 1996), and merely serves to encourage the filing of unnecessarily successive motions. 1998Id. at 93-94 . | 1 | 2 |
DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERVICES v. Privettegreen2 sentences2018See G.F.C. , 686 So.2d at 1384 -85 . 4 In light of the interests the presumption serves and the "weighty policies" underlying it, we held in Privette that "there must be a clear and compelling reason based primarily on the child's best interests to overcome the presumption of legitimacy even after the legal father is proven not to be the biological father." Privette , 617 So.2d at 309 . 2018We further held that the standard of proof in such proceedings should be "at least the equivalent of the burden of proof that would exist in proceedings to terminate the legal father's parental rights." Id. | 1 | 1 |
Gfc v. Sggreen1 sentence2018See G.F.C. , 686 So.2d at 1384 -85 . 4 In light of the interests the presumption serves and the "weighty policies" underlying it, we held in Privette that "there must be a clear and compelling reason based primarily on the child's best interests to overcome the presumption of legitimacy even after the legal father is proven not to be the biological father." Privette , 617 So.2d at 309 . | 1 | 1 |
Collinsworth v. O'CONNELLgreen1 sentence2010Collinsworth v. O’Connell, 508 So.2d 744, 747 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (“This standard, emphasizing best interests of the child rather than parents, would accord effect to the same factors governing custody.”); Levine v. Best, 595 So.2d 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Grayned v. City of Rockfordgreen2 sentences2005Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 612 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 ; Grayned, 408 U.S. at 114, 92 S.Ct. 2294 . 2005Broadrick, 413 U.S. at 612 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 ; Grayned, 408 U.S. at 114, 92 S.Ct. 2294 . | 1 | 1 |
Falkenberg v. Colegreen1 sentence1997See Rodan v. Doyle, 614 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Visual Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington Brothers, PLC., 508 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robert McPartlingreen2 sentences1987Courts have recognized the common interests exception where the group members were criminal co-defendants, United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir.1979); Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183 (9th Cir.1965); civil co-defendants, Western Fuels Association v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 102 F.R.D. 201 ; In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 595 (N.D.Tex. 1981); companies that had individually been summoned before a grand jury, Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir.1964); co-parties to potential litigation, In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 59 1987In holding the attorney-client privilege applicable to McPartlin's statements made in confidence to the investigator for his co-defendant's counsel for a purpose related to both defenses, the court reasoned that the common interests privilege does not require that the defenses be in all respects compatible, but is applicable "where different lawyers represent clients who have some interests in common," id. at 1336 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Broadrick v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2011Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). 2011Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 612 , 93 S.Ct. 2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). | 3 | 2005–2011 |
Levine v. Best
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2015Id. | 2 | 2010–2015 |
In Re SNW
green
1 sentence2014We agree with the Second District Court when, in In re S.N.W., 912 So.2d at 373 n. 4, it described the best interests analysis thusly: We note that the “best interest” determination to be made under these circumstances is somewhat unique. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Beagle v. Beagle
green
2 sentences1997The Court emphasized that the "inadequacy of the best interests test in this limited circumstance does not change or modify existing principles regarding the use of that test in other family law concepts." Beagle, 678 So.2d at 1272 . 1997The Court repeatedly emphasized that its decision requiring a showing of harm in the context of an intact family did not change any other application of the best interests test. [3] Beagle, 678 So.2d at 1277 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Visual Scene v. PILKINGTON BROS., Plc.
green
1 sentence1997See Rodan v. Doyle, 614 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Visual Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington Brothers, PLC., 508 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
In re LTV Securities Litigation
green
2 sentences1987Courts have recognized the common interests exception where the group members were criminal co-defendants, United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir.1979); Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183 (9th Cir.1965); civil co-defendants, Western Fuels Association v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 102 F.R.D. 201 ; In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 595 (N.D.Tex. 1981); companies that had individually been summoned before a grand jury, Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir.1964); co-parties to potential litigation, In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 59 1987Courts have recognized the common interests exception where the group members were criminal co-defendants, United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir.1979); Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183 (9th Cir.1965); civil co-defendants, Western Fuels Association v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 102 F.R.D. 201 ; In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 595 (N.D.Tex. 1981); companies that had individually been summoned before a grand jury, Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir.1964); co-parties to potential litigation, In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 59 | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Transmirra Products Corp. v. Monsanto Chemical Co.
green
1 sentence1987Courts have recognized the common interests exception where the group members were criminal co-defendants, United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir.1979); Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183 (9th Cir.1965); civil co-defendants, Western Fuels Association v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 102 F.R.D. 201 ; In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 595 (N.D.Tex. 1981); companies that had individually been summoned before a grand jury, Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir.1964); co-parties to potential litigation, In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 59 | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Continental Oil Company, a Corporation v. United States
green
1 sentence1987Courts have recognized the common interests exception where the group members were criminal co-defendants, United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir.1979); Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183 (9th Cir.1965); civil co-defendants, Western Fuels Association v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 102 F.R.D. 201 ; In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 595 (N.D.Tex. 1981); companies that had individually been summoned before a grand jury, Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir.1964); co-parties to potential litigation, In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 59 | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Lee W. Hunydee v. United States
green
1 sentence1987Courts have recognized the common interests exception where the group members were criminal co-defendants, United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir.1979); Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183 (9th Cir.1965); civil co-defendants, Western Fuels Association v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 102 F.R.D. 201 ; In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 595 (N.D.Tex. 1981); companies that had individually been summoned before a grand jury, Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir.1964); co-parties to potential litigation, In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 59 | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Western Fuels Ass'n v. Burlington Northern Railroad
green
2 sentences1987Courts have recognized the common interests exception where the group members were criminal co-defendants, United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir.1979); Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183 (9th Cir.1965); civil co-defendants, Western Fuels Association v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 102 F.R.D. 201 ; In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 595 (N.D.Tex. 1981); companies that had individually been summoned before a grand jury, Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir.1964); co-parties to potential litigation, In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 59 1987Western Fuels Association v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 102 F.R.D. 201 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Schachar v. American Academy of Opthalmology, Inc.
green
1 sentence1987Courts have recognized the common interests exception where the group members were criminal co-defendants, United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321 (7th Cir.1979); Hunydee v. United States, 355 F.2d 183 (9th Cir.1965); civil co-defendants, Western Fuels Association v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 102 F.R.D. 201 ; In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 595 (N.D.Tex. 1981); companies that had individually been summoned before a grand jury, Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir.1964); co-parties to potential litigation, In re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 59 | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.