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 2001–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ware Else, Inc. v. Ofsteingreen2 sentences2008See Ware Else, Inc. v. Ofstein, 856 So.2d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). 2005The Michigan parties maintain that a line of cases culminating in Ware Else, Inc. v. Ofstein, 856 So.2d 1079, 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), holds that "mere inconvenience or additional expense" to the parties is an insufficient reason to refuse to enforce a venue selection clause that attempts to transfer an essentially local dispute to a remote forum. | 2 | 2 |
Inter-Active Services v. HEATHROW MASTERgreen1 sentence2025Co., 819 So. 2d 732, 739 (Fla. 2002) (quoting Inter-Active Servs., Inc. v. Heathrow Master Ass’n, Inc., 721 So. 2d 433, 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)). 6 Here, the trial court erroneously held that this “precursor condition” must be met before the venue selection clause, the arbitration clause, or the rest of the Agreement applies. | 1 | 1 |
Siegle v. Progressive Consumers Ins. Co.green1 sentence2025Co., 819 So. 2d 732, 739 (Fla. 2002) (quoting Inter-Active Servs., Inc. v. Heathrow Master Ass’n, Inc., 721 So. 2d 433, 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)). 6 Here, the trial court erroneously held that this “precursor condition” must be met before the venue selection clause, the arbitration clause, or the rest of the Agreement applies. | 1 | 1 |
Antoniazzi v. Wardakgreen1 sentence2024Antoniazzi v. Wardak, 259 So. 3d 206, 209 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). 2 “‘We,’ ‘us’ and ‘our’ mean the underwriting company providing the insurance, as shown on the declarations page [i.e. | 1 | 1 |
TRAVEL COUNTRY RV CENTER, INC. v. Baxtergreen1 sentence2024Moreover, “[w]hen a contract includes a mandatory venue clause, a trial court is bound to honor it unless there is ‘a showing that the clause is unjust or unreasonable.’” Id. (quoting Travel Country RV Ctr., Inc. v. Baxter, 932 So. 2d 547, 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
Corsec, Sl v. Vmc Intern. Franchisinggreen1 sentence2011Florida courts have long recognized that “[f]orum selection clauses are presumptively valid.” Corsee, S.L. v. VMC Int’l Franchising, LLC, 909 So.2d 945, 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Sauder v. Raymangreen1 sentence2010See Sauder v. Rayman, 800 So.2d 355, 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (in interpreting forum selection clause, Court looked to the intent of the parties and the language used in the particular forum provision). | 1 | 1 |
Texas Auto Mart v. Thrifty Rent-A-Cargreen1 sentence2009Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So.2d 627, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)); see also Texas Auto Mart, 979 So.2d at 362 (“If a venue selection clause unambiguously mandates that litigation be subject to an agreed upon venue, then it is reversible error for the trial court to ignore the clause.”). | 1 | 1 |
Management Computer v. Perry Const.green1 sentence2009Computer Controls, Inc. v. Charles Perry Constr., Inc., 743 So.2d 627, 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)); see also Texas Auto Mart, 979 So.2d at 362 (“If a venue selection clause unambiguously mandates that litigation be subject to an agreed upon venue, then it is reversible error for the trial court to ignore the clause.”). | 1 | 1 |
Hyundai America, Inc. v. Meissner & Wurst GmbH & Co.green1 sentence2005See Hyundai America, Inc. v. Meissner & Wurst GMBH & Co.-U.S. Operations, Inc., 26 F.Supp.2d 1217 (N.D.Cal.1998)(venue and choice of law provisions treated as dispute resolution provisions); Flender Corp. v. Tippins Int'l, Inc., 830 A.2d 1279 (Pa. Super.2003)(clause requiring venue in Illinois courts treated as dispute resolution clause); Sterling Forest Assoc., Ltd. v. Barnett-Range Corp., 673 F.Supp. 1394 (E.D. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mark Marks, PAgreen1 sentence2003See State v. Mark Marks, P.A., 698 So.2d 533 (Fla.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Ground Improv. Tech. v. Merchants Bonding Co.green2 sentences2001Burden of Proof Roadhouse argues that Pozo failed to meet his burden of proof in moving to *1258 transfer venue because he failed to file any affidavits or present any evidence as required by Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc. v. Merchants Bonding Co., 707 So.2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), in which this court stated that "any defendant seeking dismissal of a suit based upon Rule 1.061 forum non conveniens must support the motion by affidavit or other evidence offered under oath." Pozo admits that he did not file any affidavits or present any evidence, but argues that this case falls under 2001Burden of Proof Roadhouse argues that Pozo failed to meet his burden of proof in moving to *1258 transfer venue because he failed to file any affidavits or present any evidence as required by Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc. v. Merchants Bonding Co., 707 So.2d 1138, 1139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), in which this court stated that "any defendant seeking dismissal of a suit based upon Rule 1.061 forum non conveniens must support the motion by affidavit or other evidence offered under oath." Pozo admits that he did not file any affidavits or present any evidence, but argues that this case falls under | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
SAI Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Applied Systems, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005The First District was again presented with the question of whether a contractual venue provision governed a tort claim under FDUTPA in SAI Insurance Agency Inc. v. Applied Systems Inc., 858 So.2d 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Sterling Forest Associates, Ltd. v. Barnett-Range Corp.
neutral
1 sentence2005See Hyundai America, Inc. v. Meissner & Wurst GMBH & Co.-U.S. Operations, Inc., 26 F.Supp.2d 1217 (N.D.Cal.1998)(venue and choice of law provisions treated as dispute resolution provisions); Flender Corp. v. Tippins Int'l, Inc., 830 A.2d 1279 (Pa. Super.2003)(clause requiring venue in Illinois courts treated as dispute resolution clause); Sterling Forest Assoc., Ltd. v. Barnett-Range Corp., 673 F.Supp. 1394 (E.D. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Flender Corp. v. Tippins International, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005See Hyundai America, Inc. v. Meissner & Wurst GMBH & Co.-U.S. Operations, Inc., 26 F.Supp.2d 1217 (N.D.Cal.1998)(venue and choice of law provisions treated as dispute resolution provisions); Flender Corp. v. Tippins Int'l, Inc., 830 A.2d 1279 (Pa. Super.2003)(clause requiring venue in Illinois courts treated as dispute resolution clause); Sterling Forest Assoc., Ltd. v. Barnett-Range Corp., 673 F.Supp. 1394 (E.D. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Carroll v. James J. Andrews, Inc.
green
1 sentence2001However, the employment agreement, which is between Antonio Carbone and Access expressly provides at paragraph 8.3 that it "contains the entire agreement between the parties...." [2] The defendants inexplicably rely on Tropicana Pools, Inc. v. Brown, 270 So.2d 751 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972) in asserting that paragraph 7 is simply a jurisdiction as opposed to a venue selection clause. | 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.