12 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co.green2 sentences2025Co., 674 So. 2d 86, 92 (Fla. 1996) (“[I]f the public interest factors themselves are at or near equipoise, then the third step of the inquiry will provide no basis for defeating the presumption favoring plaintiff’s choice of forum.”); Ward v. Kerzner Int’l Hotels Ltd., 2005 WL 2456191 , at *5 (S.D. 2013The third step of the inquiry, as formulated in Kinney, is reached when, “after taking into account the presumption favoring the plaintiffs choice of forum,” the trial court determines that the private interest factors are at or near equipoise, meaning that “the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative forum will not significantly undermine or favor the ‘private interests’ of any particular party, as compared with the forum in which suit was filed.” Kinney, 674 So.2d at 91 . | 4 | 6 |
Young v. Stategreen2 sentences2021Of particular importance is the third step of this inquiry, where “[a] trial court must analyze [the] subjective issue [of] whether a proffered explanation for a challenge is a pretext.” Young v. State, 744 So. 2d 1077, 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). 2021Of particular importance is the third step of this inquiry, in which “[a] trial court must analyze [the] subjective issue [of] whether a proffered explanation for a challenge is a pretext.” Young v. State, 744 So. 2d 1077, 1082 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). | 2 | 2 |
Tune v. Philip Morris Incorporatedgreen1 sentence2025Fla. Mar. 30, 2005) (“[T]he Bahamas’ interest is somewhat lessened where the sole plaintiff is an American citizen.”); Tune v. Philip Morris, Inc., 766 So. 2d 350, 352 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (“A false conflict can exist under at least three different circumstances. | 1 | 1 |
Marcus Jamal Graham v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2017See Graham v. State, 207 So.3d 135, 141 (Fla. 2016) (clarifying that the same elements test applies when a defendant is convicted under multiple statutes for a single criminal act); Tindal v. State, 145 So.3d 915, 923-34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (engaging in same elements analysis only after concluding that the offenses occurred during the same criminal episode and that the charges were not based on distinct acts); Sanders v. State, 101 So.3d 373, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA.2012) (explaining that if the charged offenses occurred in separate episodes or involved distinct acts, no further analysis is required 2017See Graham v. State, 207 So. 3d 135, 141 (Fla. 2016) (clarifying that the same elements test applies when a defendant is convicted under multiple statutes for a single criminal act); Tindal v. State, 145 So. 3d 915, 923-34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (engaging in same elements analysis only after concluding that the offenses occurred during the same criminal episode and that the charges were not based on distinct acts); Sanders v. State, 101 So. 3d 373, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (explaining that if the charged offenses occurred in separate episodes or involved distinct acts, no further analysis is requi | 1 | 1 |
Sanders v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Graham v. State, 207 So.3d 135, 141 (Fla. 2016) (clarifying that the same elements test applies when a defendant is convicted under multiple statutes for a single criminal act); Tindal v. State, 145 So.3d 915, 923-34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (engaging in same elements analysis only after concluding that the offenses occurred during the same criminal episode and that the charges were not based on distinct acts); Sanders v. State, 101 So.3d 373, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA.2012) (explaining that if the charged offenses occurred in separate episodes or involved distinct acts, no further analysis is required 2017See Graham v. State, 207 So. 3d 135, 141 (Fla. 2016) (clarifying that the same elements test applies when a defendant is convicted under multiple statutes for a single criminal act); Tindal v. State, 145 So. 3d 915, 923-34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (engaging in same elements analysis only after concluding that the offenses occurred during the same criminal episode and that the charges were not based on distinct acts); Sanders v. State, 101 So. 3d 373, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (explaining that if the charged offenses occurred in separate episodes or involved distinct acts, no further analysis is requi | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences2017This Court applied the distinct acts test in our decision in Harris v. State, 111 So.3d 922, 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), and examined the entire record to determine whether the facts reflected “an uninterrupted series of acts, as opposed to distinct acts separated by time, intervening acts, or different locations.” Third, and only after determining that the conduct involved did not arise from separate criminal episodes or distinct acts occurring during a single criminal episode, the reviewing court must apply the third step of the analysis, same elements test. 2017This Court applied the distinct acts test in our decision in Harris v. State, 111 So. 3d 922, 924 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), and examined the entire record to determine whether the facts reflected “an uninterrupted series of acts, as opposed to distinct acts separated by time, intervening acts, or different locations.” Third, and only after determining that the conduct involved did not arise from separate criminal episodes or distinct acts occurring during a single criminal episode, the reviewing court must apply the third step of the analysis, same elements test. | 1 | 1 |
James Tindal v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Graham v. State, 207 So.3d 135, 141 (Fla. 2016) (clarifying that the same elements test applies when a defendant is convicted under multiple statutes for a single criminal act); Tindal v. State, 145 So.3d 915, 923-34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (engaging in same elements analysis only after concluding that the offenses occurred during the same criminal episode and that the charges were not based on distinct acts); Sanders v. State, 101 So.3d 373, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA.2012) (explaining that if the charged offenses occurred in separate episodes or involved distinct acts, no further analysis is required 2017See Graham v. State, 207 So. 3d 135, 141 (Fla. 2016) (clarifying that the same elements test applies when a defendant is convicted under multiple statutes for a single criminal act); Tindal v. State, 145 So. 3d 915, 923-34 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (engaging in same elements analysis only after concluding that the offenses occurred during the same criminal episode and that the charges were not based on distinct acts); Sanders v. State, 101 So. 3d 373, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (explaining that if the charged offenses occurred in separate episodes or involved distinct acts, no further analysis is requi | 1 | 1 |
Scordas v. STATE DEPT. OF HEALTHgreen1 sentence2001See Scordas, 649 So.2d at 895 . | 1 | 1 |
Friends For All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corporationgreen1 sentence1996See Friends for All Children, 717 F.2d at 610 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pain v. United Technologies Corp.
green
1 sentence2013In that instance, the court must then weigh the “public interest factors,” which is an analysis that “focuses on ‘whether the case has a general nexus with the forum sufficient to justify the forum’s commitment of judicial time and resources to it.’ ” Id. at 92 (quoting Pain, 637 F.2d at 791 ). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Melbourne v. State
green
1 sentence2009When this Court initially examined the issue, we agreed that, under Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla.1996), where the proffered reason for the peremptory strike is facially race-neutral, the trial court must then determine whether the strike is pretextual before it can be disallowed. 1 We found that, based on the transcripts supplied in the original appeal, the trial court was required, but failed, to conduct the third step in that inquiry as to the genuineness of the explanation for the strike of juror Gray. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Howson v. Dept. of Children and Families
green
1 sentence2001As to the third step of the analysis, considered to be the most "significant step," Howson, 743 So.2d at 567 , the summary conclusion that appellant did not exhibit any of the listed conditions for disability sheds no light on the rationale employed to find that appellant's impairments, separately or combined, failed to "meet or equal" a listed impairment. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.