12 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
US Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Rosadogreen1 sentence2024However, the subject of this concurrence, which is the complete elimination of a claim for pre-litigation attorneys’ fees under U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Rosado, 606 So. 2d 628, 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), is directly caused by the pre-suit notice process created by Section 627.70152 and cannot be severed therefrom. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Campagnulogreen2 sentences2012For example, in Williams v. Campagnulo, 588 So.2d 982, 983 (Fla.1991), the supreme court rejected an argument that the pre-suit notice requirement in a previous version of the medical malpractice statute was procedural and that it therefore violated the court’s rulemaking authority. 2012The court stated that “[t]he statute was intended to address a legitimate legislative policy decision relating to medical malpractice and established a process intended to promote the settlement of meritorious claims at an early stage without the necessity of a full adversarial proceed-ing_ We find that the statute is primarily substantive.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Meli v. Dade County School Bd.green1 sentence1989See § 768.57Í3). 1 In Meli v. Dade County School Board, 490 So.2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 500 So.2d 543 (Fla.1986), our court held that the pre-suit notice requirement of section 768.28(6) could be waived by the conduct of the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
McSwain v. Dussiagreen1 sentence1989Accord McSwain v. Dussia, 499 So.2d 868, 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), review denied, 511 So.2d 298 (Fla.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2023Menendez involved an amendment to Florida’s “Required Personal Injury Protection” (“PIP”) statute that imposed a pre-suit notice requirement similar to the requirement imposed by section 627.70152. 35 So. 3d at 876–77. 2022Here, rather than address the omission of the “checklist” within the assignment agreement, appellants rely upon the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Menendez v. Progressive Express Insurance Co., 35 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 2010), for the proposition that portions of the statute not implicated in this case—a pre-suit notice requirement and fee shifting provision—impair substantive contractual rights. | 3 | 2022–2025 |
Busch v. Lennar Homes, LLC
green
2 sentences2018Id. 2018Id. | 3 | 2018–2018 |
Goncharuk v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 698 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Davis v. ORLANDO REGIONAL MEDICAL CTR.
green
1 sentence2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Jensen Beach v. Citizens for Resp. Growth
green
1 sentence1997Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.