80 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2023 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Richardson v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Conde v. State, 860 So.2d 930, 942 (Fla.2003). [2] Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1996). [3] The trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971). 2002The court conducted a hearing pursuant to Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971) and found that Gutenberg had given this information to the investigating officers but it had not been recorded in any police report nor shared with the State Attorney’s office. | 1 | 13 |
Nelson v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256, 258-259 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). [1] On the record before us, no *211 abuse of discretion has been demonstrated. 1996At a hearing on defendant's motion, the trial court conducted an inquiry into the basis for defendant's motion to discharge his court-appointed counsel pursuant to Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). | 1 | 3 |
State of Florida v. Mariano J. Vilchezgreen2 sentences2018At the hearing, the parties presented the trial court with two competing district court of appeal opinions regarding when the sixty-day period commences for a junior lienholder to file a claim for surplus proceeds: (i) Straub v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. , 182 So.3d 878 , 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (holding that the sixty-day period commences when the clerk issues and files the Certificate of Title), and (ii) Bank of N.Y. 2018At the hearing, the parties presented the trial court with two competing district court of appeal opinions regarding when the sixty-day period commences for a junior lienholder to file a claim for surplus proceeds: (i) Straub v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 182 So. 3d 878, 881 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (holding that the sixty-day period commences when the clerk issues and files the Certificate of Title), and (ii) Bank of N.Y. | 1 | 2 |
May v. Illinois Nat. Ins. Co.green1 sentence2022At the hearing, the beneficiaries’ counsel argued that, under the new summary judgment standard that became effective on May 1, 2021 , 6 the personal representative’s affidavit was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact to preclude entry of summary judgment in their favor. | 1 | 1 |
Ferrandino v. Rileygreen1 sentence2021RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Sewell, 150 So. 3d 1247, 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (explaining a trial court’s discretion in granting a motion for a protective order based on cumulative discovery under Rule 1.280(c)); see also Ferrandino v. Riley, 236 So. 3d 493, 494-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (explaining broad discretion of trial court to regulate discovery, “particularly the court’s finding that enforcement of the subpoena would subject [a non-party witness] to an undue burden and 2 harassment,” and noting that if reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of an action taken, no abuse of discr | 1 | 1 |
Barnsdale Holdings LLC v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.green1 sentence2021RaceTrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Sewell, 150 So. 3d 1247, 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (explaining a trial court’s discretion in granting a motion for a protective order based on cumulative discovery under Rule 1.280(c)); see also Ferrandino v. Riley, 236 So. 3d 493, 494-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (explaining broad discretion of trial court to regulate discovery, “particularly the court’s finding that enforcement of the subpoena would subject [a non-party witness] to an undue burden and 2 harassment,” and noting that if reasonable people could differ as to the propriety of an action taken, no abuse of discr | 1 | 1 |
Wh Smith, Plc v. Benages & Associates, Inc.green1 sentence2017We do not reverse for a proper hearing because neither party challenges on appeal the procedure employed below and also because, when viewing any disputed facts in the light most favorable to Mrs. Jones, we are able to conclude that she would, have been unable to establish the requisite minimum contacts even if the trial court had conducted such a hearing. 9 See WH Smith, PLC v. Benages & Assocs., Inc., 51 So.3d 577, 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (reversing denial of motion to dismiss, which trial court did not base on live testimony but bn voluminous discovery, “because, as a matter of law, based on | 1 | 1 |
McKnight v. Evancheckgreen1 sentence2017See McKnight v. Evancheck, 907 So. 2d 699, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming a dismissal for fraud on the court based on medical records and where neither party requested an evidentiary hearing); Long v. Swofford, 805 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (affirming dismissal of the complaint with prejudice for fraud on the court after the trial court conducted a hearing and reviewed the plaintiff’s medical records and deposition); Savino v. Fla. Drive In Theatre Mgmt., Inc., 697 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (affirming dismissal for fraud on the court and finding that the plaintiff fail | 1 | 1 |
Alexander v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Teva, 181 So.3d at 521 (holding that limited evi-dentiary hearing under Venetian Salami was required because parties’ affidavits and sworn proof could not be reconciled in determining jurisdiction; “[although the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to dismiss, it did'not receive any testimony or evidence at the hearing”; and “[t]he order denying the motion to dismiss contains no reasoning and does not explain how the trial court resolved the disputed issues of fact”); Madonna, 95 So.3d at 992 (explaining that, although evidentiary hearing under Venetian Salami “is, by definition, | 1 | 1 |
Long v. Swoffordgreen1 sentence2017See McKnight v. Evancheck, 907 So. 2d 699, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming a dismissal for fraud on the court based on medical records and where neither party requested an evidentiary hearing); Long v. Swofford, 805 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (affirming dismissal of the complaint with prejudice for fraud on the court after the trial court conducted a hearing and reviewed the plaintiff’s medical records and deposition); Savino v. Fla. Drive In Theatre Mgmt., Inc., 697 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (affirming dismissal for fraud on the court and finding that the plaintiff fail | 1 | 1 |
Savino v. FLA. DRIVE IN THEATRE MANAGEMENTgreen1 sentence2017See McKnight v. Evancheck, 907 So. 2d 699, 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming a dismissal for fraud on the court based on medical records and where neither party requested an evidentiary hearing); Long v. Swofford, 805 So. 2d 882, 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (affirming dismissal of the complaint with prejudice for fraud on the court after the trial court conducted a hearing and reviewed the plaintiff’s medical records and deposition); Savino v. Fla. Drive In Theatre Mgmt., Inc., 697 So. 2d 1011, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (affirming dismissal for fraud on the court and finding that the plaintiff fail | 1 | 1 |
Madonna v. Gaynor ex rel. Gaynorgreen1 sentence2017See Teva, 181 So.3d at 521 (holding that limited evi-dentiary hearing under Venetian Salami was required because parties’ affidavits and sworn proof could not be reconciled in determining jurisdiction; “[although the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to dismiss, it did'not receive any testimony or evidence at the hearing”; and “[t]he order denying the motion to dismiss contains no reasoning and does not explain how the trial court resolved the disputed issues of fact”); Madonna, 95 So.3d at 992 (explaining that, although evidentiary hearing under Venetian Salami “is, by definition, | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Davisgreen1 sentence2016See Davis v. Davis, 32 So.3d 743, 744 (Fla. 1st. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rolackgreen1 sentence2016“The.State may seek certiorari review of non-final pretrial orders .that exclude critical evidence from the State’s case in a criminal trial.” State v. Rolack, 104 So.3d 1286, 1288 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Condominium Ass'n of La Mer Estates v. Bank of New York Mellon Corp.green2 sentences2015La Mer 'Estates, 137 So.3d at 397-98 (internal citations omitted). 2015La Mer Estates, 137 So. 3d at 397-98 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Dumas v. Stategreen1 sentence2014In Dumas, our supreme court held, consistent with Atkinson v. State, 317 So.2d 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), that it was error to preclude a witness who violated the rule of sequestration from testifying unless the trial court conducted an inquiry to determine if the rule violation was with the “knowledge, consent, procurement of the defendant or his counsel.” Dumas, 350 So.2d at 466. | 1 | 1 |
| Zellers v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Morrill v. Lytlegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Galante v. USAA Casualty Ins. Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Conde v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| King v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ward v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States of America, Vsv. Walter K. Fischer and Gregory Stuevegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kirkham v. Kirkhamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences2006The trial court conducted a hearing, pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and accepted Williams' waiver of counsel as knowing and voluntary. 2006The trial court conducted a hearing, pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and accepted Williams' waiver of counsel as knowing and voluntary. | 5 | 1986–2006 |
State v. Neil
green
2 sentences1997The court conducted an inquiry pursuant to State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984), and ultimately struck these challenges. 1993Upon the State’s objection to the attempted strike, the trial court conducted the inquiry required by State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla.1984), and found that the reasons given for the strike were pretextual. | 4 | 1989–1997 |
State v. Arthur
green
2 sentences2021Accordingly, the trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1980), to consider (1) if the State’s evidence rises to the standard of proof evident, presumption great and if so, (2) whether there are conditions that can protect the community and ensure Hernandez’s appearance in court. 2021Accordingly, the trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1980), to consider (1) if the State’s evidence rises to the standard of proof evident, presumption great and if so, (2) whether there are conditions that can protect the community and ensure Hernandez’s appearance in court. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Florida Patient's Compensation Fund v. Rowe
green
2 sentences2018ISSUES ON APPEAL The appellants contend that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees to the appellees because: (1) the trial court made no factual findings as to whether the sanctions motion the trial court proceeded under was served upon the appellants, Garcia-Menocal and GMIP; (2) the trial court made no specific findings as to the requisite factors articulated by the Florida Supreme Court in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) (holding that in determining reasonable attorney’s fees, Florida courts should utilize the criteria set 2018ISSUES ON APPEAL The appellants contend that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding attorney’s fees to the appellees because: (1) the trial court made no factual findings as to whether the sanctions motion the trial court proceeded under was served upon the appellants, Garcia-Menocal and GMIP; (2) the trial court made no specific findings as to the requisite factors articulated by the Florida Supreme Court in Florida Patient’s Compensation Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985) (holding that in determining reasonable attorney’s fees, Florida courts should utilize the criteria set | 2 | 1989–2018 |
In Re KM
green
2 sentences2008The Father appealed, and this court reversed, ordering the trial court to reconsider the matter in accordance with the requirements of section 39.521(3)(b). 1 See In re K.M., 946 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). 2 On remand, the trial court conducted a hearing over two days, finding that “there was insufficient evidence introduced to meet the standard] of compelling evidence endangering the health, safety or well[-]being of [K.M.] if placed with [the Father]” and ordering that the grandmother immediately surrender custody of K.M. to the Father. 2008The Father appealed, and this court reversed, ordering the trial court to reconsider the matter in accordance with the requirements of section 39.521(3)(b). [1] See In re K.M., 946 So.2d 1214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). [2] On remand, the trial court conducted a hearing over two days, finding that "there was insufficient evidence introduced to meet the stand[ard] of compelling evidence endangering the health, safety or well[-]being of [K.M.] if placed with [the Father]" and ordering that the grandmother immediately surrender custody of K.M. to the Father. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Koon v. Dugger
green
2 sentences2007When Grim instructed his attorneys not to present mitigating evidence, the trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to Koon v. Dugger, 619 So.2d 246 (Fla.1993). 2003In light of the fact that Grim continued to insist on waiving his right to present mitigating evidence during the penalty phase, and, in fact, ordered his attorneys not to present any mitigation, the trial court conducted a hearing pursuant to Koon v. Dugger, 619 So.2d 246 (Fla.1993). [2] During the hearing, the trial judge determined that Grim freely, voluntarily, and knowingly entered into his decision to waive mitigation and announced that he would conduct the penalty phase before the jury where Grim still could, if he wished, present mitigating evidence. | 2 | 2003–2007 |
Owen v. State
green
1 sentence2023We, however, found “no abuse of discretion in the manner in which the court conducted the hearing.” Owen II, 773 So. 2d at 515 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
3709 N. Flagler Drive Prodigy Land Trust v. Bank of America, N.A.
green
1 sentence2019At the hearing, Benzrent’s counsel argued that Benzrent had, at the very least, standing to raise Wilmington’s lack of standing to foreclose as an affirmative defense, citing the Fourth District’s then recently issued opinion in 3709 N. Flagler Drive Prodigy Land Trust v. Bank of America, N.A., 226 So. 3d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (determining that a subsequent title owner may challenge a foreclosing plaintiff’s lack of standing to foreclose on a mortgage). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Love v. State
green
1 sentence2018At the time the trial court conducted the immunity hearing and issued its ruling, it did not have the benefit of this Court's recent decision in Love v. State , 247 So. 3d 609 , 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018), wherein we concluded that the old immunity standard continues to apply to crimes committed before the 2017 amendment to section 776.032. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
McCray v. State
green
1 sentence2017We also denied Mr. McCray's request to dismiss the information "because fewer than five years have elapsed since the original determination that Mr. McCray was incompetent to proceed due to mental illness." Id. at 1297 (citing § 916.145). -2- Following our opinion in McCray, the trial court conducted a hearing and entered the order that prompted the instant certiorari proceeding (Petition II). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Roberto Basulto v. Hialeah Automotive, etc.
green
1 sentence2017Counsel for the buyers argued that *1280 the arbitration clause was not enforceable because there was no meeting of the minds and because its terms were unconscionable, citing to Basulto v. Hialeah Automotive, 141 So.3d 1145 (Fla. 2014). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Causey
green
1 sentence2016We therefore issued an order pursuant to State v. Causey, 503 So.2d 321 (Fla.1987), requiring Appellant’s counsel to address these issues. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2016In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), this Court’s review of the record revealed that Appellant’s competency was questioned, but the record below did not include a competency evaluation or reflect that the trial court conducted a hearing or issued an order on Appellant’s competency. 2016In this appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), this Court’s review of the record revealed that Appellant’s competency was questioned, but the record below did not include a competency evaluation or reflect that the trial court conducted a hearing or issued an order on Appellant’s competency. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Atkinson v. State
green
1 sentence2014In Dumas, our supreme court held, consistent with Atkinson v. State, 317 So.2d 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), that it was error to preclude a witness who violated the rule of sequestration from testifying unless the trial court conducted an inquiry to determine if the rule violation was with the “knowledge, consent, procurement of the defendant or his counsel.” Dumas, 350 So.2d at 466. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Craft green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Johnson v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| DEPT. OF HEALTH AND REHAB. SERV. v. Heffler green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| United States v. Finley green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Spencer v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Patton v. United States red | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Williams v. Florida green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Dunn v. Nat. SEC. Fire and Cas. Co. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Continental Cas. Co. v. AQUA JET FILTER SYSTEMS green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Hyler v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Franqui v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Mickens v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Tucker v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Melbourne v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Goble v. Frohman green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| E. J. Co. v. Sandvik Aktiebolag green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| United States ex rel. Rabushka v. Crane Co. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Florida v. Franqui green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Hardwick v. State red | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. DuFresne green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Joe-Lin v. Lrg Restaurant Group green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Ramirez v. State green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Walker v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Magaw v. State green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.
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.