reach doctrine in Florida

12 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2025 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.

Followed or applied (15)

Case	Followed	Cited
Holm v. Demetreegreen fladistctapp · 1996 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2004–2017 2 sentences 2017“Once beyond the reach of rule 1.540(b), the final judgment of foreclosure ‘pass[es] into the unassailable realm of finality.’ ” Id. (quoting Holm v. Demetree, 681 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)). 2004Once beyond the reach of rule 1.540(b), the final judgment of foreclosure "passed into the unassailable realm of finality." See Holm v. Demetree, 681 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996).	2	2
Woodard v. City of Lincolngreen neb · 1999 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1183 (1990); Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist., 64 Cal.App.4th 1023 , 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 777, 789 (1998); Woodard v. City of Lincoln, 256 Neb. 61 , 588 N.W.2d 831, 836 (1999) ("We find no reason to place the tort claims acts outside the reach of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.”); Brown v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 493 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 461, 462 (1999) (equitably estopping the City from asserting the limitations period due to misconduct); Mercer v. State, 48 Wash.App. 496 , 739 P.2d 703, 706 (1987). . 2002See, e.g., Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1183 (1990); Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist., 64 Cal.App.4th 1023 , 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 777, 789 (1998); Woodard v. City of Lincoln, 256 Neb. 61 , 588 N.W.2d 831, 836 (1999) ("We find no reason to place the tort claims acts outside the reach of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.”); Brown v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 493 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 461, 462 (1999) (equitably estopping the City from asserting the limitations period due to misconduct); Mercer v. State, 48 Wash.App. 496 , 739 P.2d 703, 706 (1987). .	2	2
Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Districtgreen calctapp · 1998 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1183 (1990); Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist., 64 Cal.App.4th 1023 , 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 777, 789 (1998); Woodard v. City of Lincoln, 256 Neb. 61 , 588 N.W.2d 831, 836 (1999) ("We find no reason to place the tort claims acts outside the reach of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.”); Brown v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 493 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 461, 462 (1999) (equitably estopping the City from asserting the limitations period due to misconduct); Mercer v. State, 48 Wash.App. 496 , 739 P.2d 703, 706 (1987). . 2002See, e.g., Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1183 (1990); Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist., 64 Cal.App.4th 1023 , 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 777, 789 (1998); Woodard v. City of Lincoln, 256 Neb. 61 , 588 N.W.2d 831, 836 (1999) ("We find no reason to place the tort claims acts outside the reach of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.”); Brown v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 493 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 461, 462 (1999) (equitably estopping the City from asserting the limitations period due to misconduct); Mercer v. State, 48 Wash.App. 496 , 739 P.2d 703, 706 (1987). .	2	2
Pritchard v. Stategreen ariz · 1990 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1183 (1990); Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist., 64 Cal.App.4th 1023 , 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 777, 789 (1998); Woodard v. City of Lincoln, 256 Neb. 61 , 588 N.W.2d 831, 836 (1999) ("We find no reason to place the tort claims acts outside the reach of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.”); Brown v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 493 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 461, 462 (1999) (equitably estopping the City from asserting the limitations period due to misconduct); Mercer v. State, 48 Wash.App. 496 , 739 P.2d 703, 706 (1987). . 2002See, e.g., Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1183 (1990); Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist., 64 Cal.App.4th 1023 , 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 777, 789 (1998); Woodard v. City of Lincoln, 256 Neb. 61 , 588 N.W.2d 831, 836 (1999) ("We find no reason to place the tort claims acts outside the reach of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.”); Brown v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 493 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 461, 462 (1999) (equitably estopping the City from asserting the limitations period due to misconduct); Mercer v. State, 48 Wash.App. 496 , 739 P.2d 703, 706 (1987). .	2	2
Brown v. City of New Yorkgreen nyappdiv · 1999 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1183 (1990); Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist., 64 Cal.App.4th 1023 , 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 777, 789 (1998); Woodard v. City of Lincoln, 256 Neb. 61 , 588 N.W.2d 831, 836 (1999) ("We find no reason to place the tort claims acts outside the reach of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.”); Brown v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 493 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 461, 462 (1999) (equitably estopping the City from asserting the limitations period due to misconduct); Mercer v. State, 48 Wash.App. 496 , 739 P.2d 703, 706 (1987). . 2002See, e.g., Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1183 (1990); Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist., 64 Cal.App.4th 1023 , 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 777, 789 (1998); Woodard v. City of Lincoln, 256 Neb. 61 , 588 N.W.2d 831, 836 (1999) ("We find no reason to place the tort claims acts outside the reach of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.”); Brown v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 493 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 461, 462 (1999) (equitably estopping the City from asserting the limitations period due to misconduct); Mercer v. State, 48 Wash.App. 496 , 739 P.2d 703, 706 (1987). .	2	2
Mercer v. Stategreen washctapp · 1987 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1183 (1990); Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist., 64 Cal.App.4th 1023 , 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 777, 789 (1998); Woodard v. City of Lincoln, 256 Neb. 61 , 588 N.W.2d 831, 836 (1999) ("We find no reason to place the tort claims acts outside the reach of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.”); Brown v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 493 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 461, 462 (1999) (equitably estopping the City from asserting the limitations period due to misconduct); Mercer v. State, 48 Wash.App. 496 , 739 P.2d 703, 706 (1987). . 2002See, e.g., Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1183 (1990); Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist., 64 Cal.App.4th 1023 , 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 777, 789 (1998); Woodard v. City of Lincoln, 256 Neb. 61 , 588 N.W.2d 831, 836 (1999) ("We find no reason to place the tort claims acts outside the reach of the doctrine of equitable estoppel.”); Brown v. City of New York, 264 A.D.2d 493 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 461, 462 (1999) (equitably estopping the City from asserting the limitations period due to misconduct); Mercer v. State, 48 Wash.App. 496 , 739 P.2d 703, 706 (1987). .	2	2
Bank One, NA v. Batroniegreen fladistctapp · 2004 · cited in 3 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2015–2024 2 sentences 2024Once a final judgment is "beyond the reach of rule 1.540(b)," that judgment "pass[es] into the unassailable 7 realm of finality." Romero, 209 So. 3d at 635 (alteration in original) (quoting Bank One, Nat'l Ass'n v. Batronie, 884 So. 2d 346, 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). 2017“Once beyond the reach of rule 1.540(b), the final judgment of foreclosure ‘pass[es] into the unassailable realm of finality.’ ” Id. (quoting Holm v. Demetree, 681 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)).	1	3
Romero v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.green fladistctapp · 2017 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024Once a final judgment is "beyond the reach of rule 1.540(b)," that judgment "pass[es] into the unassailable 7 realm of finality." Romero, 209 So. 3d at 635 (alteration in original) (quoting Bank One, Nat'l Ass'n v. Batronie, 884 So. 2d 346, 349 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).	1	1
STATE, DEPT. OF REV. v. Thurmondgreen fladistctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022In construing the reach of rule 1.540(b), this court has held the term “judgment” is synonymous with final “order.” See State, Dep’t of Revenue v. Thurmond, 721 So. 2d 827, 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (finding Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4) mandated reversal of trial court’s order); De La Osa v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 208 So. 3d 259, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Any difference between the terms final ‘judgment,’ final ‘decree,’ and final ‘order’ disappeared long ago, at least for procedural purposes.”). 6 Against these principles, we examine the case at hand.	1	1
De La Osa v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.green fladistctapp · 2016 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022In construing the reach of rule 1.540(b), this court has held the term “judgment” is synonymous with final “order.” See State, Dep’t of Revenue v. Thurmond, 721 So. 2d 827, 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (finding Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4) mandated reversal of trial court’s order); De La Osa v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 208 So. 3d 259, 260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Any difference between the terms final ‘judgment,’ final ‘decree,’ and final ‘order’ disappeared long ago, at least for procedural purposes.”). 6 Against these principles, we examine the case at hand.	1	1
In Re Emergency Amendments to Rules, Etc.green fla · 1980 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 1 sentence 2007See In re Emergency Amendments to Rules of Procedure, 381 So.2d 1370, 1375 ("[t]he change was to recognize the fact that some legal issues may have `great public importance' but may not be sufficiently known to the public to have great public interest'"); see also Justice Ben F. Overton, Appellate Rules Amended to Implement New Jurisdiction, Fla. Bar News, Apr. 15, 1980, at 5 (accord).	1	1
Voorhees v. Stategreen fla · 1997 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005State v. Peterson, 739 So.2d 561, 567 (Fla.1999) ("We agree with the reasoning of these courts and find that the `fellow officer' rule applies to searches as well as arrests."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 831 , 121 S.Ct. 85 , 148 L.Ed.2d 46 (2000); Voorhees v. State, 699 So.2d 602, 609 (Fla.1997) ("The fellow officer rule allows an arresting officer to assume probable cause to arrest a suspect from information supplied by other officers."); Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1159 , 116 S.Ct. 1550 , 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996); see also State v. Maynard, 783 So.2d 226 (Fl	1	1
State v. Maynardgreen fla · 2001 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005State v. Peterson, 739 So.2d 561, 567 (Fla.1999) ("We agree with the reasoning of these courts and find that the `fellow officer' rule applies to searches as well as arrests."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 831 , 121 S.Ct. 85 , 148 L.Ed.2d 46 (2000); Voorhees v. State, 699 So.2d 602, 609 (Fla.1997) ("The fellow officer rule allows an arresting officer to assume probable cause to arrest a suspect from information supplied by other officers."); Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1159 , 116 S.Ct. 1550 , 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996); see also State v. Maynard, 783 So.2d 226 (Fl	1	1
State v. Petersongreen fla · 1999 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 1 sentence 2005State v. Peterson, 739 So.2d 561, 567 (Fla.1999) ("We agree with the reasoning of these courts and find that the `fellow officer' rule applies to searches as well as arrests."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 831 , 121 S.Ct. 85 , 148 L.Ed.2d 46 (2000); Voorhees v. State, 699 So.2d 602, 609 (Fla.1997) ("The fellow officer rule allows an arresting officer to assume probable cause to arrest a suspect from information supplied by other officers."); Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1159 , 116 S.Ct. 1550 , 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996); see also State v. Maynard, 783 So.2d 226 (Fl	1	1
Prevatte v. Prevattegreen scctapp · 1989 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996Id. 360 S.E.2d at 301 ; Prevatte v. Prevatte, 297 S.C. 345 , 377 S.E.2d 114, 116 (Ct.App.1989). 1996Id. 360 S.E.2d at 301 ; Prevatte v. Prevatte, 297 S.C. 345 , 377 S.E.2d 114, 116 (Ct.App.1989).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Spangler v. Florida State Turnpike Authority green fla · 1958 2 sentences 2002See, e.g., Pritchard v. State, 163 Ariz. 427 , 788 P.2d 1178, 1183 (1990); Ortega v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist., 64 Cal.App.4th 1023 , 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 777, 789 (1998); Woodard v. City of Lincoln, 256 Neb. 61 , 588 N.W.2d 831, 836 (1999) ("We find no reason to place the tort claims acts outside the reach of the doctrine of equitable estoppel."); Brown v. City of New-York, 264 A.D.2d 493 , 694 N.Y.S.2d 461, 462 (1999) (equitably estopping the City from asserting the limitations period due to misconduct); Mercer v. State, 48 Wash.App. 496 , 739 P.2d 703, 706 (1987). [16] In my view, Spangl 2002In my view, Spangler v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, 106 So.2d 421 (Fla.1958), is not applicable to the issues addressed by this Court today.	2	2002–2002
Jackson v. State green fla · 2008 1 sentence 2025In Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 2008), the court confronted the issue of whether the deprivation of counsel during the sentencing process was a “sentencing error,” requiring preservation by either a contemporaneous objection or the filing of a post- sentence rule 3.800(b) motion.	1	2025–2025
Talley v. United States green scotus · 2000 1 sentence 2005State v. Peterson, 739 So.2d 561, 567 (Fla.1999) ("We agree with the reasoning of these courts and find that the `fellow officer' rule applies to searches as well as arrests."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 831 , 121 S.Ct. 85 , 148 L.Ed.2d 46 (2000); Voorhees v. State, 699 So.2d 602, 609 (Fla.1997) ("The fellow officer rule allows an arresting officer to assume probable cause to arrest a suspect from information supplied by other officers."); Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1159 , 116 S.Ct. 1550 , 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996); see also State v. Maynard, 783 So.2d 226 (Fl	1	2005–2005
Simpson v. United States green scotus · 2000 1 sentence 2005State v. Peterson, 739 So.2d 561, 567 (Fla.1999) ("We agree with the reasoning of these courts and find that the `fellow officer' rule applies to searches as well as arrests."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 831 , 121 S.Ct. 85 , 148 L.Ed.2d 46 (2000); Voorhees v. State, 699 So.2d 602, 609 (Fla.1997) ("The fellow officer rule allows an arresting officer to assume probable cause to arrest a suspect from information supplied by other officers."); Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1159 , 116 S.Ct. 1550 , 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996); see also State v. Maynard, 783 So.2d 226 (Fl	1	2005–2005
Robinson v. California green scotus · 2000 1 sentence 2005State v. Peterson, 739 So.2d 561, 567 (Fla.1999) ("We agree with the reasoning of these courts and find that the `fellow officer' rule applies to searches as well as arrests."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 831 , 121 S.Ct. 85 , 148 L.Ed.2d 46 (2000); Voorhees v. State, 699 So.2d 602, 609 (Fla.1997) ("The fellow officer rule allows an arresting officer to assume probable cause to arrest a suspect from information supplied by other officers."); Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1159 , 116 S.Ct. 1550 , 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996); see also State v. Maynard, 783 So.2d 226 (Fl	1	2005–2005
Johnson v. State green fla · 1995 1 sentence 2005State v. Peterson, 739 So.2d 561, 567 (Fla.1999) ("We agree with the reasoning of these courts and find that the `fellow officer' rule applies to searches as well as arrests."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 831 , 121 S.Ct. 85 , 148 L.Ed.2d 46 (2000); Voorhees v. State, 699 So.2d 602, 609 (Fla.1997) ("The fellow officer rule allows an arresting officer to assume probable cause to arrest a suspect from information supplied by other officers."); Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1159 , 116 S.Ct. 1550 , 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996); see also State v. Maynard, 783 So.2d 226 (Fl	1	2005–2005
Yates v. Godwin green scotus · 1996 1 sentence 2005State v. Peterson, 739 So.2d 561, 567 (Fla.1999) ("We agree with the reasoning of these courts and find that the `fellow officer' rule applies to searches as well as arrests."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 831 , 121 S.Ct. 85 , 148 L.Ed.2d 46 (2000); Voorhees v. State, 699 So.2d 602, 609 (Fla.1997) ("The fellow officer rule allows an arresting officer to assume probable cause to arrest a suspect from information supplied by other officers."); Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1159 , 116 S.Ct. 1550 , 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996); see also State v. Maynard, 783 So.2d 226 (Fl	1	2005–2005
Barno v. California green scotus · 1996 1 sentence 2005State v. Peterson, 739 So.2d 561, 567 (Fla.1999) ("We agree with the reasoning of these courts and find that the `fellow officer' rule applies to searches as well as arrests."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 831 , 121 S.Ct. 85 , 148 L.Ed.2d 46 (2000); Voorhees v. State, 699 So.2d 602, 609 (Fla.1997) ("The fellow officer rule allows an arresting officer to assume probable cause to arrest a suspect from information supplied by other officers."); Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1159 , 116 S.Ct. 1550 , 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996); see also State v. Maynard, 783 So.2d 226 (Fl	1	2005–2005
Zankich v. Allen green scotus · 1996 1 sentence 2005State v. Peterson, 739 So.2d 561, 567 (Fla.1999) ("We agree with the reasoning of these courts and find that the `fellow officer' rule applies to searches as well as arrests."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 831 , 121 S.Ct. 85 , 148 L.Ed.2d 46 (2000); Voorhees v. State, 699 So.2d 602, 609 (Fla.1997) ("The fellow officer rule allows an arresting officer to assume probable cause to arrest a suspect from information supplied by other officers."); Johnson v. State, 660 So.2d 648 (Fla.1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1159 , 116 S.Ct. 1550 , 134 L.Ed.2d 653 (1996); see also State v. Maynard, 783 So.2d 226 (Fl	1	2005–2005
Stone v. Stone green fladistctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2004The lack of jurisdiction of the trial court "may be considered independently by the appellate court, even if the issue was never raised in the trial court." Stone v. Stone, 873 So.2d 628 , 630 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).	1	2004–2004
Yarbrough v. Collins green sc · 1987 2 sentences 1996Whatever doubt may have been cast on the reach of this rule by Yarbrough v. Collins, 293 S.C. 290 , 360 S.E.2d 300 (1987), the rule unquestionably applies where the “publication affidavit” is fraudulent. 1996Whatever doubt may have been cast on the reach of this rule by Yarbrough v. Collins, 293 S.C. 290 , 360 S.E.2d 300 (1987), the rule unquestionably applies where the “publication affidavit” is fraudulent.	1	1996–1996
Key v. Alexander green fla · 1926 1 sentence 1982Black (Eng.) 1078, and is liable to full compensatory damages, including those for the loss of the bargain.” 108 So. at 885 .	1	1982–1982

Statutes the citing opinions construe

FL § 95.11 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 35 (1963–2025) NY 15 (1971–2011) LA 14 (1984–2015) FL 12 (1982–2025) NJ 11 (1973–2024) IL 9 (1967–2022) MD 8 (1926–2015) WA 7 (1904–2016) MA 7 (1977–2014) UT 7 (2002–2026) IA 6 (1977–2017) WY 5 (1981–2006) AK 4 (1967–2005) MI 4 (1975–2015) VA 4 (1988–2014) TX 4 (1966–2017) OR 3 (1981–2003) CT 3 (2005–2017) AZ 3 (1997–2018) TN 3 (2014–2018) DC 3 (1981–2002) OK 2 (2019–2019) ME 2 (2000–2016) MN 2 (1967–1985) WV 2 (2003–2016) ID 2 (1943–2007) VT 2 (2016–2024) PA 2 (2002–2021) IN 2 (2006–2023) OH 2 (2020–2021) MT 2 (2011–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check