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.
10 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1963–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hialeah Race Course, Inc. v. GULFSTREAM PK. R. ASS'Ngreen2 sentences2015See Dep’t of Legal Affairs v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 434 So.2d 879, 882 (Fla.1983) (explaining that the purpose of section 550.078, Fla. Stat. (1981), which allowed a permittee to convert its permit for harness racing to a permit for dog racing, was to allow an ailing enterprise with the least tax revenue to convert to a moré lucrative form of business, thereby generating tax revenue for the state); Hialeah Race Course, Inc. v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass’n, 245 So.2d 625, 629 (Fla.1971) (“Unquestionably, state revenue is one of the prime factors for permission of parimutuel wagerin 1972The Supreme Court has stated in the case of Hialeah Race Course, Inc. v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc., Fla.1971, 245 So.2d 625 , that unquestionably State revenue is one of the prime factors to be considered in granting permission for pari-mutuel wagering in the State of Florida. | 1 | 2 |
DEPT. OF LEGAL AFF. v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc.green1 sentence2015See Dep’t of Legal Affairs v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 434 So.2d 879, 882 (Fla.1983) (explaining that the purpose of section 550.078, Fla. Stat. (1981), which allowed a permittee to convert its permit for harness racing to a permit for dog racing, was to allow an ailing enterprise with the least tax revenue to convert to a moré lucrative form of business, thereby generating tax revenue for the state); Hialeah Race Course, Inc. v. Gulfstream Park Racing Ass’n, 245 So.2d 625, 629 (Fla.1971) (“Unquestionably, state revenue is one of the prime factors for permission of parimutuel wagerin | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bell v. State
green
2 sentences1975He doesn't have enough sense to think of something like that to do and put it off on somebody." In Bell v. State, 93 So.2d 575 (Fla. 1957), the Supreme Court held inter alia: "The prime test of testimonial competency *213 of a young child is his intelligence rather than his age... ." We are aware of the numerous decisions which accord to the trial judge a very broad discretion in determining the competency of witnesses. 1965Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Bell v. State, Fla. 1957, 93 So.2d 575 , has set forth that the prime test of the testimonial competency of a young child is the child's intelligence *5 rather than age. | 7 | 1965–1988 |
Gulfstream Pk. R. Ass'n v. Division of Pari-Mutuel W.
green
1 sentence1972Furthermore, in a concurring opinion of Justice Adkins in the case of Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc. v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Fla.1971, 253 So.2d 429 , it is stated that the State has a pecuniary interest in racing “because of the revenue from the pari-mutuel betting, for racing was authorized solely because of the certain pro duction of revenue for the State.” Furthermore, the Board recognized the fact that the winter season is traditionally the height of the tourist season in Miami Beach, and it is advantageous to provide pari-mutuel facilities as near to the tourist as | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Swain v. State
green
1 sentence1972Bell v. State, Fla. 1957, 93 So.2d 575 ; Swain v. *435 State, Fla.App. 1965, 172 So.2d 3 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Campbell v. State
green
2 sentences1963No one can delve into the minds of the jurors and conclude with certainty that it was not one or both of the transactions which took place in Pennsylvania upon which the jury found the petitioners by a general verdict to be "Guilty, Grand Larceny." This paradox emphasizes one of the prime factors underlying the salutary rule set forth by this Court in its decision in the case of Campbell v. State, 155 Fla. 359 , 20 So.2d 127 . 1963No one can delve into the minds of the jurors and conclude with certainty that it was not one or both of the transactions which took place in Pennsylvania upon which the jury found the petitioners by a general verdict to be "Guilty, Grand Larceny." This paradox emphasizes one of the prime factors underlying the salutary rule set forth by this Court in its decision in the case of Campbell v. State, 155 Fla. 359 , 20 So.2d 127 . | 1 | 1963–1963 |
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.