11 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nielsen v. City of Sarasotagreen2 sentences2005As pointed out in Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, Fla., 117 So.2d 731 , our jurisdiction to review decisions of courts of appeal because of alleged conflicts is invoked by (1) the announcement of a rule of law which conflicts with a rule previously announced by this court or another district, or (2) the application of a rule of law to produce a different result in a case which involves substantially the same facts as a prior case. 1986In Nielsen v. City of Sarasota, 117 So.2d 731, 734 (Fla. 1960), this Court explained: While conceivably there may be other circumstances, the principal situations justifying the invocation of our jurisdiction to review decisions of Courts of Appeal because of alleged conflicts are, (1) the announcement of a rule of law which conflicts with a rule previously announced by this Court, or (2) the application of a rule of law to produce a different result in a case which involves substantially the same controlling facts as a prior case disposed of by this Court. | 3 | 9 |
Mancini v. Stategreen2 sentences2016This Court’s jurisdiction to review decisions of courts of appeal for express and direct conflict is invoked by “the application of a rule of law to produce a different result in a case which involves substantially the same [controlling] facts as a prior case” or “the announcement of a rule of law which conflicts with a rule previously announced by this court or another district[.]” Mancini v. State, 312 So. 2d 732, 733 (Fla. 1975); see Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. 2016This Court’s jurisdiction to review decisions of courts of appeal for express and direct conflict is invoked by “the application of a rule of law to produce a different result in a case which involves substantially the same [controlling] facts as a prior case” or “the announcement of a rule of law which conflicts with a rule previously announced by this court or another district[J” Mancini v. State, 312 So.2d 732, 733 (Fla.1975); see Adams v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. SEABOARD COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANYgreen2 sentences2016Co., 296 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla. 1974). 2016Co., 296 So.2d 1, 3 (Fla.1974). | 1 | 1 |
Combs v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Bd. of Escambia County, 395 So.2d 584, 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (having undertaken the operation of school-crossing lights, the school board had a duty to do so in a reasonable manner). [3] See Crossley v. State, 596 So.2d 447, 449 (Fla.1992); Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93, 94 (Fla. 1983). [4] To wit: (1) the announcement of a rule of law that conflicts with a rule previously announced by this Court or another district court; or (2) the application of a rule of law to produce a different result in a case that involves substantially similar controlling facts as a prior case disposed of by this Co | 1 | 1 |
Crossley v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Bd. of Escambia County, 395 So.2d 584, 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (having undertaken the operation of school-crossing lights, the school board had a duty to do so in a reasonable manner). [3] See Crossley v. State, 596 So.2d 447, 449 (Fla.1992); Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93, 94 (Fla. 1983). [4] To wit: (1) the announcement of a rule of law that conflicts with a rule previously announced by this Court or another district court; or (2) the application of a rule of law to produce a different result in a case that involves substantially similar controlling facts as a prior case disposed of by this Co | 1 | 1 |
Padgett v. SCH. BD. OF ESCAMBIA CTY.green1 sentence2009Bd. of Escambia County, 395 So.2d 584, 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (having undertaken the operation of school-crossing lights, the school board had a duty to do so in a reasonable manner). [3] See Crossley v. State, 596 So.2d 447, 449 (Fla.1992); Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93, 94 (Fla. 1983). [4] To wit: (1) the announcement of a rule of law that conflicts with a rule previously announced by this Court or another district court; or (2) the application of a rule of law to produce a different result in a case that involves substantially similar controlling facts as a prior case disposed of by this Co | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Majeske v. Palm Beach Kennel Club
green
1 sentence2005Cf. Majeske v. Palm Beach Kennel Club, [ 117 So.2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).] Such a difference of view, however, is not the measure of our appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of Courts of Appeal because of alleged conflicts with prior decisions of this Court on the same point of law. *100 While conceivably there may be other circumstances, the principal situations justifying the invocation of our jurisdiction to review decisions of Courts of Appeal because of alleged conflicts are, (1) the announcement of a rule of law which conflicts with a rule previously announced by this Court, or (2 | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Barth v. Florida State Constructors Service, Inc.
green
1 sentence1981Barth v. Florida State Constructors Service, Inc., 327 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.