79 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1955–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hembd v. Dauriagreen2 sentences2021The matter alleged must affect the outcome of the case and not merely be ‘de minimis.’ Thus, to obtain a hearing on a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion, the law requires a movant ‘to demonstrate a prima facie case of fraud, not just nibble at the edges of the concept.’ Hembd v. Dauria, 859 So. 2d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)”) (citations and quotations omitted). 2011Thus, to obtain a hearing on a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion, the law requires a movant “to demonstrate a prima facie case of fraud, not just nibble at the edges of the concept.” Hembd v. Dauria, 859 So.2d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). | 3 | 3 |
Branton v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Branton v. State , 187 So.3d 382 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). 2019See Branton v. State , 187 So.3d 382 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences1975In the recent case of Brown v. State, 245 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla. 1971), involving a similar situation, this Court, speaking through Justice Adkins, stated: `Defendant then requested further examination by experts. 1971In the recent case of Brown v. State, 245 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla. 1971), involving a similar situation, this Court, speaking through Justice Adkins, stated: "Defendant then requested further examination by experts. | 2 | 2 |
Morton v. Stategreen2 sentences2025But because Gudinas was indeed twenty years old “at the time of the murder[], it is impossible for him to demonstrate that he falls within the ages of exemption, rendering his claim facially insufficient and therefore properly summarily denied.” Ford, 402 So. 3d at 979 (citing Morton, 995 So. 2d at 245 ) (“Because it is impossible for Morton to demonstrate that he falls within the ages of exemption, his claim is facially insufficient and it was proper for the court to deny Morton a hearing on this claim.”)). - 20 - This claim also lacks merit because, as we have explained, this Court lacks the 2025See Morton v. State, 995 So. 2d 233, 245 (Fla. 2008) (“Because it is impossible for Morton to demonstrate that he falls within the ages of exemption, his claim is facially insufficient and it was proper for the court to deny Morton a hearing on this claim.”). | 1 | 2 |
Steele v. Kehoegreen2 sentences2014See Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So.2d 931, 934 (Fla.1999). 2004Steele v. Kehoe, 747 So.2d 931 (Fla.1999)(holding that a prisoner is entitled to a hearing on a claim that he or she missed the deadline to file a Rule 3.850 motion because his or her attorney had agreed to file the motion but failed to do so in a timely manner; if the prisoner prevails at the hearing he or she is authorized to file belatedly a Rule 3.850 motion). . | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Olanogreen1 sentence2024Cf. § 948.06(b), (d), Fla. Stat. (authorizing revocation upon admission but requiring a hearing if the violation is not admitted); see generally United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (explaining that “forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right” but “waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right” (internal quotation and citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Russell v. Stategreen1 sentence2024An admission has the effect of waiving the probationer’s entitlement to “an opportunity to be fully heard on his or her behalf in person or by counsel.” § 948.06(2)(d), Fla. Stat. It also waives his right to require the State “establish by greater weight of the evidence that the violation of probation occurred.” Russell v. State, 982 So. 2d 642, 646 (Fla. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Valls v. Dept. of Healthgreen2 sentences2022See Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 678 (Fla. 2014) (“[W]here the parties and the judge agree, the trial court may decide the issue of competency on the basis of the written reports alone.” (quoting Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513, 515 (Fla. 1971))); Jones v. State, 125 So. 3d 982 , 984 (Fla. 2013) (holding Rule 3.212 was satisfied when trial court based finding of competence on defense’s two expert competency evaluations without conducting competency hearing); Fowler, 255 So. 3d at 515 (“Our decision [that the trial court erred by not setting a hearing to determine the 6 defendant’s compe 2022See Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 678 (Fla. 2014) (“[W]here the parties and the judge agree, the trial court may decide the issue of competency on the basis of the written reports alone.” (quoting Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513, 515 (Fla. 1971))); Jones v. State, 125 So. 3d 982 , 984 (Fla. 2013) (holding Rule 3.212 was satisfied when trial court based finding of competence on defense’s two expert competency evaluations without conducting competency hearing); Fowler, 255 So. 3d at 515 (“Our decision [that the trial court erred by not setting a hearing to determine the 6 defendant’s compe | 1 | 1 |
Fowler v. Stategreen2 sentences2022See Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 678 (Fla. 2014) (“[W]here the parties and the judge agree, the trial court may decide the issue of competency on the basis of the written reports alone.” (quoting Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513, 515 (Fla. 1971))); Jones v. State, 125 So. 3d 982 , 984 (Fla. 2013) (holding Rule 3.212 was satisfied when trial court based finding of competence on defense’s two expert competency evaluations without conducting competency hearing); Fowler, 255 So. 3d at 515 (“Our decision [that the trial court erred by not setting a hearing to determine the 6 defendant’s compe 2022See Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 678 (Fla. 2014) (“[W]here the parties and the judge agree, the trial court may decide the issue of competency on the basis of the written reports alone.” (quoting Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513, 515 (Fla. 1971))); Jones v. State, 125 So. 3d 982 , 984 (Fla. 2013) (holding Rule 3.212 was satisfied when trial court based finding of competence on defense’s two expert competency evaluations without conducting competency hearing); Fowler, 255 So. 3d at 515 (“Our decision [that the trial court erred by not setting a hearing to determine the 6 defendant’s compe | 1 | 1 |
Bernard J. Dougherty v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2022See Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 678 (Fla. 2014) (“[W]here the parties and the judge agree, the trial court may decide the issue of competency on the basis of the written reports alone.” (quoting Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513, 515 (Fla. 1971))); Jones v. State, 125 So. 3d 982 , 984 (Fla. 2013) (holding Rule 3.212 was satisfied when trial court based finding of competence on defense’s two expert competency evaluations without conducting competency hearing); Fowler, 255 So. 3d at 515 (“Our decision [that the trial court erred by not setting a hearing to determine the 6 defendant’s compe 2022See Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 678 (Fla. 2014) (“[W]here the parties and the judge agree, the trial court may decide the issue of competency on the basis of the written reports alone.” (quoting Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513, 515 (Fla. 1971))); Jones v. State, 125 So. 3d 982 , 984 (Fla. 2013) (holding Rule 3.212 was satisfied when trial court based finding of competence on defense’s two expert competency evaluations without conducting competency hearing); Fowler, 255 So. 3d at 515 (“Our decision [that the trial court erred by not setting a hearing to determine the 6 defendant’s compe | 1 | 1 |
Rusniaczek v. Tableau Fine Art Group, Inc.green1 sentence2021See also Rusniaczek v. Tableau Fine Art Grp., Inc., 139 So. 3d 355, 357-58 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (explaining that the “purpose of this specificity requirement is to permit the court ‘to determine whether the movant has made a prima facie showing which would justify relief from judgment,’ and is not merely rehashing matters explored at trial”) (quotation omitted). 2 | 1 | 1 |
JUNIO SAINVIL v. STATE OF FLORIDAgreen1 sentence2019See Sainvil v. State, 248 So. 3d 148, 149 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“The imposition of restitution without notice or a hearing is error.”) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Hamrick v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Analysis “The imposition of restitution without notice or a hearing is error.” Hamrick v. State, 648 So. 2d 274, 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Manuel v. State, 152 So. 3d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Kendrick Silver v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2018The State alleges that the motion did not provide reasonable belief to the court, and “the order for evaluation may have been entered in an abundance of caution, merely in response to the filing of the motion.” However, speculation on the trial court’s reasonable belief is unnecessary, because “a trial court’s appointing experts to evaluate a defendant’s competency suggests there were reasonable grounds to do so.” Silver v. State, 193 So. 3d 991, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Datavious Manuel v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Analysis “The imposition of restitution without notice or a hearing is error.” Hamrick v. State, 648 So. 2d 274, 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Manuel v. State, 152 So. 3d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1048 (Fla.2011) (“At the hearing, the State withdrew the allegation that Johnson had committed new substantive offenses.... ”); Martin v. State, 937 So.2d 714, 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“At the hearing on the violation of probation, the prosecutor withdrew the allegation of violation of condition number 5 (the new law violation).”), disapproved on other grounds in Del Valle v. State, 80 So.3d 999 (Fla. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1048 (Fla.2011) (“At the hearing, the State withdrew the allegation that Johnson had committed new substantive offenses.... ”); Martin v. State, 937 So.2d 714, 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“At the hearing on the violation of probation, the prosecutor withdrew the allegation of violation of condition number 5 (the new law violation).”), disapproved on other grounds in Del Valle v. State, 80 So.3d 999 (Fla. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
| Foster v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Summersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mederos v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Joseph v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Yoxsimer v. Yoxsimergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Culbreath v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Shaw v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Evans v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Johnson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| McLin v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hering v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jackson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Bank of America, NAgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Stephens v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davenport v. Dimitrijevicgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Salvatierra v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State, Dept. of Transp. v. Finkelsteingreen | 1 | 1 |
| STATE, DHRS v. Lemastergreen | 1 | 1 |
| McGraw v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gordon v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Dept. of General Serv. v. Willisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hoffman v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Whitmore Ex Rel. Simmons v. Arkansasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Smith
green
2 sentences2019To be entitled to a hearing on a rule 1.540(b) motion, the allegations in the motion and accompanying affidavits must show a "colorable entitlement to relief." See Smith v. Smith , 903 So.2d 1044 , 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ; Richards v. Crowder , 191 So.3d 524 , 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). 2019To be entitled to a hearing on a rule 1.540(b) motion, the allegations in the motion and accompanying affidavits must show a "colorable entitlement to relief." See Smith v. Smith , 903 So.2d 1044 , 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ; Richards v. Crowder , 191 So.3d 524 , 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
John Richards v. Ashley Dale Crowder
green
2 sentences2019To be entitled to a hearing on a rule 1.540(b) motion, the allegations in the motion and accompanying affidavits must show a "colorable entitlement to relief." See Smith v. Smith , 903 So.2d 1044 , 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ; Richards v. Crowder , 191 So.3d 524 , 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). 2019To be entitled to a hearing on a rule 1.540(b) motion, the allegations in the motion and accompanying affidavits must show a "colorable entitlement to relief." See Smith v. Smith , 903 So.2d 1044 , 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) ; Richards v. Crowder , 191 So.3d 524 , 525 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Connor v. State
green
2 sentences2012We rejected this argument in Lawrence v. State, 969 So.2d 294 (Fla.2007), and Connor v. State, 979 So.2d 852 (Fla.2007). 2009We rejected this argument in Lawrence v. State, 969 So.2d 294 (Fla.2007), and Connor v. State, 979 So.2d 852 (Fla.2007). | 2 | 2009–2012 |
Lawrence v. State
green
2 sentences2012We rejected this argument in Lawrence v. State, 969 So.2d 294 (Fla.2007), and Connor v. State, 979 So.2d 852 (Fla.2007). 2009We rejected this argument in Lawrence v. State, 969 So.2d 294 (Fla.2007), and Connor v. State, 979 So.2d 852 (Fla.2007). | 2 | 2009–2012 |
Mounds v. State
green
2 sentences1995Dominique v. State, 590 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Mounds v. State, 526 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). 1991As this court held in Mounds v. State, 526 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), "the imposition of restitution without notice or a hearing was error." In the present case this rule was not honored and thus we find it necessary to remand for purposes of allowing appellant his opportunity to be heard on the matter. | 2 | 1991–1995 |
Kirk v. Baumann
neutral
2 sentences1991We therefore depart from our holding in Kirk v. Baumann, supra, and herein hold that an order of court need not precede the filing of a valid notice of lis pendens. 1982We therefore depart from our holding in Kirk v. Baumann, supra , and herein hold that an order of court need not precede the filing of a valid notice of lis pendens. | 2 | 1982–1991 |
Preece v. Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022See Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 678 (Fla. 2014) (“[W]here the parties and the judge agree, the trial court may decide the issue of competency on the basis of the written reports alone.” (quoting Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513, 515 (Fla. 1971))); Jones v. State, 125 So. 3d 982 , 984 (Fla. 2013) (holding Rule 3.212 was satisfied when trial court based finding of competence on defense’s two expert competency evaluations without conducting competency hearing); Fowler, 255 So. 3d at 515 (“Our decision [that the trial court erred by not setting a hearing to determine the 6 defendant’s compe 2022See Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 678 (Fla. 2014) (“[W]here the parties and the judge agree, the trial court may decide the issue of competency on the basis of the written reports alone.” (quoting Fowler v. State, 255 So. 2d 513, 515 (Fla. 1971))); Jones v. State, 125 So. 3d 982 , 984 (Fla. 2013) (holding Rule 3.212 was satisfied when trial court based finding of competence on defense’s two expert competency evaluations without conducting competency hearing); Fowler, 255 So. 3d at 515 (“Our decision [that the trial court erred by not setting a hearing to determine the 6 defendant’s compe | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Mills v. State
green
1 sentence2021Recognizing two contrary holdings, the Second District certified direct conflict with Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), and Alexis v. State, 211 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Alexis v. State
green
1 sentence2021Recognizing two contrary holdings, the Second District certified direct conflict with Mills v. State, 177 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), and Alexis v. State, 211 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Lezcano
green
1 sentence2018Because we find that the trial court committed fundamental error in entering final summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo without conducting a hearing as provided by rule 1.510(c), the final summary judgment entered in favor of Wells Fargo is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.2 See Lezcano, 22 So. 3d at 634 ; Greene, 745 So. 2d at 411 ; Kozich, 609 So. 2d at 148 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kozich v. Hartford Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2018Because we find that the trial court committed fundamental error in entering final summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo without conducting a hearing as provided by rule 1.510(c), the final summary judgment entered in favor of Wells Fargo is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.2 See Lezcano, 22 So. 3d at 634 ; Greene, 745 So. 2d at 411 ; Kozich, 609 So. 2d at 148 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Greene v. Seigle
green
1 sentence2018Because we find that the trial court committed fundamental error in entering final summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo without conducting a hearing as provided by rule 1.510(c), the final summary judgment entered in favor of Wells Fargo is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.2 See Lezcano, 22 So. 3d at 634 ; Greene, 745 So. 2d at 411 ; Kozich, 609 So. 2d at 148 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Del Valle v. State
green
1 sentence2016See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 60 So.3d 1045, 1048 (Fla.2011) (“At the hearing, the State withdrew the allegation that Johnson had committed new substantive offenses.... ”); Martin v. State, 937 So.2d 714, 715 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“At the hearing on the violation of probation, the prosecutor withdrew the allegation of violation of condition number 5 (the new law violation).”), disapproved on other grounds in Del Valle v. State, 80 So.3d 999 (Fla. 2011). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| McDonald v. State green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Nixon v. State green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Knorr v. Knorr green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Williams v. State green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Wallace v. State green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Huff v. State green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Brady v. Maryland green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Bates v. State green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Wincor v. Florida Bar green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Narvaez v. State green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Sireci v. State green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Stansel v. State green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Perriello v. State green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Finkelstein v. Department of Transp. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| STATE, DEPT. OF HRS v. Sandidge green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Boyd green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Durocher v. Singletary green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Hunter v. State green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Gosby v. Third Judicial Circuit green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| City of Miami v. Perez green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Brown v. Name Change green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Casey v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| In Re Keppro green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Dominique v. State green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Smith v. State green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.