10 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. JPgreen2 sentences2023Nonetheless, it is equally true that “Florida law also imports an injury in fact requirement under our standing framework.” Saleh v. Miami Gardens Square One, Inc., 353 So. 3d 1253 , 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (citing State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d 1101 , 1113 n.4 (Fla. 2004)). 2023See State v. J.P., 907 So. 2d 1101 , 1113 n.4 (Fla. 2004) (stating there are “three requirements that constitute the ‘irreducible constitutional minimum’ for standing. | 1 | 2 |
River Users v. Environmental Protectiongreen1 sentence2019Prot., 948 So. 2d 794, 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). | 1 | 1 |
South Broward Hospital District v. State, Agency for Health Care Administrationgreen1 sentence2017Dist. v. State, Agency for Health Care Admin., 141 So. 3d 678, 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (quoting Village Park Mobile Home Ass’n v. State, Dep’t of Bus. | 1 | 1 |
Village Park Mobile Home Ass'n Inc. v. State, Dept. of Businessgreen1 sentence2014Regulation, 506 So.2d 426, 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987) (concluding that appellants’ “speculative concerns” did not demonstrate any immediate injury-in-fact, the feared results of an inaccurate, unfair prospectus had not happened, and a remedy other than the prospectus approval process existed if the feared results occurred). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP)green2 sentences1987But see United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, 412 U.S. 669 , 93 S.Ct. 2405 , 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973). 1987But see United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, 412 U.S. 669 , 93 S.Ct. 2405 , 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
green
1 sentence2022TransUnion also stated that “this Court has rejected the proposition that ‘a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right.” Id. at 2205 (quoting Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 341 ). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
green
2 sentences2022TransUnion also stated that “this Court has rejected the proposition that ‘a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right.” Id. at 2205 (quoting Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 341 ). 2022TransUnion reemphasized what the United States Supreme Court said in Spokeo, that “standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Sierra Club v. Morton
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 734-35 , 92 S.Ct. 1361 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Fla. Medical Ass'n v. Dept. of Prof. Regulation
green
1 sentence1985Florida Medical Association, Inc. v. Department of Professional Regulation, 426 So.2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). [4] In this case, we are only concerned with whether appellants have met the injury-in-fact test. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.