10 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cty.green2 sentences1983Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, supra, at 1019. 1980See, Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River County, 371 So.2d 1010, 1019 (Fla. 1979). | 2 | 2 |
Curtis v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See, e.g., Curtis, 876 So.2d at 21-22 . 2011See, e.g., Curtis, 876 So.2d at 21-22 . | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Stategreen1 sentence2008State v. Williams, 198 So.2d 21, 22 (Fla. 1967) (quoting Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 533 , 98 So. 605 , 608 (1923), wherein a declaration emanating two minutes after a shooting was admitted); see also Johnson v. State, 314 So.2d 248, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (applying a four-pronged test: the statement must be the natural emanation or outgrowth of the act or occurrence in litigation, made contemporaneously with the act of violence, made voluntarily and spontaneously, and made without any indication of reflection or premeditation); Elmore v. State, 291 So.2d 617, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (applyi | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2008State v. Williams, 198 So.2d 21, 22 (Fla. 1967) (quoting Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 533 , 98 So. 605 , 608 (1923), wherein a declaration emanating two minutes after a shooting was admitted); see also Johnson v. State, 314 So.2d 248, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (applying a four-pronged test: the statement must be the natural emanation or outgrowth of the act or occurrence in litigation, made contemporaneously with the act of violence, made voluntarily and spontaneously, and made without any indication of reflection or premeditation); Elmore v. State, 291 So.2d 617, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (applyi | 1 | 1 |
Elmore v. Stategreen1 sentence2008State v. Williams, 198 So.2d 21, 22 (Fla. 1967) (quoting Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 533 , 98 So. 605 , 608 (1923), wherein a declaration emanating two minutes after a shooting was admitted); see also Johnson v. State, 314 So.2d 248, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (applying a four-pronged test: the statement must be the natural emanation or outgrowth of the act or occurrence in litigation, made contemporaneously with the act of violence, made voluntarily and spontaneously, and made without any indication of reflection or premeditation); Elmore v. State, 291 So.2d 617, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (applyi | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2008State v. Williams, 198 So.2d 21, 22 (Fla. 1967) (quoting Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 533 , 98 So. 605 , 608 (1923), wherein a declaration emanating two minutes after a shooting was admitted); see also Johnson v. State, 314 So.2d 248, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (applying a four-pronged test: the statement must be the natural emanation or outgrowth of the act or occurrence in litigation, made contemporaneously with the act of violence, made voluntarily and spontaneously, and made without any indication of reflection or premeditation); Elmore v. State, 291 So.2d 617, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (applyi | 1 | 1 |
King v. City of Seattlegreen2 sentences1984Press 1983). [3] The four-pronged test of Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State , commended by Commercial Carrier as a preliminary means of identifying the levels of decision-making activity by governmental agencies, has been further refined by the Washington Supreme Court in King v. City of Seattle, 84 Wash.2d 239 , 525 P.2d 228, 233 (1974), now requiring "the state ... to make a showing that ... [its] policy decision, consciously balancing risks and advantages, took place. 1984Press 1983). [3] The four-pronged test of Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State , commended by Commercial Carrier as a preliminary means of identifying the levels of decision-making activity by governmental agencies, has been further refined by the Washington Supreme Court in King v. City of Seattle, 84 Wash.2d 239 , 525 P.2d 228, 233 (1974), now requiring "the state ... to make a showing that ... [its] policy decision, consciously balancing risks and advantages, took place. | 1 | 1 |
Stewart v. Stategreen2 sentences1982See Stewart v. State, 92 Wash.2d 285 , 597 P.2d 101, 106-107 (1979). [4] Parenthetically, I would agree with the majority that Section 234.112, authorizing "district school boards to establish school bus stops ... at the most reasonably safe locations available ...", granted to the board the discretion to choose the most reasonably safe location for the stop. 1982See Stewart v. State, 92 Wash.2d 285 , 597 P.2d 101, 106-107 (1979). [4] Parenthetically, I would agree with the majority that Section 234.112, authorizing "district school boards to establish school bus stops ... at the most reasonably safe locations available ...", granted to the board the discretion to choose the most reasonably safe location for the stop. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Ins. Co.
green
2 sentences2024Id. at 90 (quoting Pain v. United Techs. 2024Id. at 90 (quoting Pain v. United Techs. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085 , 1092–93 (Fla. 2013). 2024Cortez v. Palace Resorts, Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085 , 1092–93 (Fla. 2013). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Washington v. State
green
1 sentence2008State v. Williams, 198 So.2d 21, 22 (Fla. 1967) (quoting Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 533 , 98 So. 605 , 608 (1923), wherein a declaration emanating two minutes after a shooting was admitted); see also Johnson v. State, 314 So.2d 248, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (applying a four-pronged test: the statement must be the natural emanation or outgrowth of the act or occurrence in litigation, made contemporaneously with the act of violence, made voluntarily and spontaneously, and made without any indication of reflection or premeditation); Elmore v. State, 291 So.2d 617, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (applyi | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Reed v. Cromer
green
1 sentence2008State v. Williams, 198 So.2d 21, 22 (Fla. 1967) (quoting Washington v. State, 86 Fla. 533 , 98 So. 605 , 608 (1923), wherein a declaration emanating two minutes after a shooting was admitted); see also Johnson v. State, 314 So.2d 248, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975) (applying a four-pronged test: the statement must be the natural emanation or outgrowth of the act or occurrence in litigation, made contemporaneously with the act of violence, made voluntarily and spontaneously, and made without any indication of reflection or premeditation); Elmore v. State, 291 So.2d 617, 619 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (applyi | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Evangelical United Brethren Church v. State
green
2 sentences1983Appellees argue, nevertheless, that even absent the Modlin doctrine they are immune from a tort action under the facts alleged by appellants because Deputy Parker's actions came within the discretionary function exception set forth in the four-pronged test of Evangelical United Brethren Church of Adna v. State, 67 Wash.2d 246 , 407 P.2d 440 (1965), as adopted by our supreme court in Commercial Carrier. 1983Appellees argue, nevertheless, that even absent the Modlin doctrine they are immune from a tort action under the facts alleged by appellants because Deputy Parker's actions came within the discretionary function exception set forth in the four-pronged test of Evangelical United Brethren Church of Adna v. State, 67 Wash.2d 246 , 407 P.2d 440 (1965), as adopted by our supreme court in Commercial Carrier. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Johnson v. State of California
green
2 sentences1983The problem with appellees' position is that while adopting the discretionary function test of Evangelical, our supreme court also adopted the "planning" versus "operational" test of Johnson v. State, 69 Cal.2d 782 , 73 Cal. Rptr. 240 , 447 P.2d 352 (1968). 1983The problem with appellees' position is that while adopting the discretionary function test of Evangelical, our supreme court also adopted the "planning" versus "operational" test of Johnson v. State, 69 Cal.2d 782 , 73 Cal. Rptr. 240 , 447 P.2d 352 (1968). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Knight v. State
green
1 sentence1981In Knight v. State, 394 So.2d 997 (Fla. 1981), this Court set out a four-pronged test for determining whether there was reasonably effective assistance: *909 1. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.