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.
11 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1909–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berry v. Berrygreen2 sentences2012See Berry v. Berry, 765 So.2d 855, 857-58 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (holding the narrow exception to the disqualification rule was inapplicable where trial judge had to exercise his discretion). 2009See Berry, 765 So.2d at 857 (finding that the narrow exception to the disqualification rule did not apply where the trial judge directed the husband’s attorney to prepare and submit a proposed order, requiring the judge to exercise his discretion in determining whether the proposed order comported with the trial judge’s directions). | 2 | 2 |
Louisville Scrap Material Co. v. Petroleum Packers, Inc.green1 sentence2026See Louisville Scrap Material Co. v. Petroleum Packers, Inc., 566 So. 2d 277, 278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (concluding trial court abused discretion by prohibiting expert from testifying and observing "[t]his is not a case where a party was taken by surprise regarding witness testimony, at the time of trial, or was not aware of what would be the subject matter of the testimony prior to trial"); Callari v. Winkeljohn, 329 So. 3d 795 , 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (stating that a court's failure to analyze the Binger factors when excluding a late-disclosed witness' testimony "will result in reversal" (quoti | 1 | 1 |
Fischer v. Knuckgreen2 sentences2012In response to the petition, the former wife argues that the exception to the disqualification rule announced in Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So.2d 240 (Fla.1986), applies to the facts of this case. 2012The exception to the disqualification rule announced in Fischer provides “[w]hen a judge has heard the testimony and arguments and rendered an oral ruling in a proceeding, the judge retains the authority to perform the ministerial act of reducing that ruling to writing.” Fischer, 497 So.2d at 243 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
STATE, DEPT. OF HIGHWAY SAFETY v. Griffingreen1 sentence2008"A litigant is entitled to have confidence that the hearing officer before whom he or she appears is acting impartially as a fact-finder." State Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Griffin, 909 So.2d 538, 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Ducre v. State, 768 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Esquire Care, Inc. v. Maguiregreen1 sentence2001See City of Apopka v. All Corners, Inc., 701 So.2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); see also Esquire Care, Inc. v. Maguire, 532 So.2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). | 1 | 1 |
City of Apopka v. All Corners, Inc.green1 sentence2001See City of Apopka v. All Corners, Inc., 701 So.2d 641 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); see also Esquire Care, Inc. v. Maguire, 532 So.2d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). | 1 | 1 |
Department of Revenue v. Goldergreen1 sentence1983See Department of Revenue v. Golder, 322 So.2d 1, 7 (Fla. 1975) (on reconsideration). | 1 | 1 |
Florida Bargreen1 sentence1983At the time the supreme court adopted the proposed Rule 1.432, it stated, "The Bar's proposed Rule 1.432 was rejected because it dealt with matters of substantive law." The Florida Bar, 391 So.2d 165, 166 (Fla. 1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Plaza v. Plaza
green
2 sentences2012We disagree based on the holding in Plaza v. Plaza, 21 So.3d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). 2012In Plaza , under circumstances similar to this case, the Third District Court held: The exception to the disqualification rule cannot be applied in this case because the trial judge directed the mother’s attorney to prepare and submit a proposed order reflecting the trial judge’s pronouncements after the hearing, the parties dispute what occurred at the hearing, the trial judge made changes to the proposed order, and there is no transcript to determine whether the order signed by the judge comports with the factual findings and oral pronouncements made by the judge at the hearing. 21 So.3d at | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Ducre v. State
green
1 sentence2008"A litigant is entitled to have confidence that the hearing officer before whom he or she appears is acting impartially as a fact-finder." State Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Griffin, 909 So.2d 538, 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Ducre v. State, 768 So.2d 1159 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Arthur v. Gibson
green
1 sentence2004Arthur v. Gibson, 654 So.2d 983 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In Re Complex Asbestos Litigation
green
2 sentences2000The most comprehensive judicial treatment of the disqualification question with respect to the hiring of nonlawyer personnel by opposing counsel is In re Complex Asbestos Litigation, 232 Cal. App.3d 572 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 732 (1 Dist. 1991), in which the court discussed the appellate standard of review, the concerns raised by disqualification motions, and the principles guiding its adoption of a disqualification standard based upon a rebuttable presumption of shared confidences. 2000The most comprehensive judicial treatment of the disqualification question with respect to the hiring of nonlawyer personnel by opposing counsel is In re Complex Asbestos Litigation, 232 Cal. App.3d 572 , 283 Cal.Rptr. 732 (1 Dist. 1991), in which the court discussed the appellate standard of review, the concerns raised by disqualification motions, and the principles guiding its adoption of a disqualification standard based upon a rebuttable presumption of shared confidences. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Income Development Corp. v. Lewis
neutral
1 sentence1991Bundy v Rudd, 336 So.2d 440 (Fla. 1978). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Livingston v. State
green
1 sentence1988In his responses to this court’s Rule to Show Cause the respondent, both on the previous occasion and this one, relies upon Livingston v. State, 441 So.2d 1083 (Fla.1983). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Gee v. Scott
neutral
1 sentence1909Our statute is aimed at objections to husband and wife as mtnesses — not to the matter of their testimony; and the change of the common-law rule by making one spouse a competent witness against the other does not affect the rule against disclosure of marital communications. 10 Ency. of Ev. p. 168; Gee v. Scott, 48 Tex. 510 , 26 Am. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
Everett v. State
green
1 sentence1909In the cases of Everett v. State, 33 Fla. 661 , 15 South. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
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.