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 1891–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Babcock v. Whatmoregreen1 sentence2025Dep’t of Rev. v. Castro, 786 So. 2d 659, 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (citing Babcock v. Whatmore, 707 So. 2d 702, 704 (Fla. 1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Florida Department of Revenue ex rel. Godoy v. Castrogreen1 sentence2025Dep’t of Rev. v. Castro, 786 So. 2d 659, 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (citing Babcock v. Whatmore, 707 So. 2d 702, 704 (Fla. 1998)). | 1 | 1 |
Bankers SEC. Ins. Co. v. Symonsgreen1 sentence2011In Bankers Security Insurance Co. v. Symons, 889 So.2d 93, 95-96 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), this court held that failure to submit a privilege log by the due date for the response to the request to produce did not automatically constitute a waiver of the right to assert privilege or work-product immunity. | 1 | 1 |
Black v. State Bargreen2 sentences1998See Black v. State Bar of California, 7 Cal.3d 676 , 103 Cal.Rptr. 288 , 499 P.2d 968 (1972); State ex. rel . 1998See Black v. State Bar of California, 7 Cal.3d 676 , 103 Cal.Rptr. 288 , 499 P.2d 968 (1972); State ex. rel . | 1 | 1 |
Stewart v. Mussolinegreen1 sentence1989See, e.g., Stewart v. Mussoline, 487 So.2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (mother charged with murdering her husband, allegedly for financial gain, was entitled *742 to invoke her fifth-amendment privilege and to refuse to answer questions concerning her financial status). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pensacola Interstate Fair, Inc. v. Popovich
neutral
2 sentences1981Appellants argue that this rule no longer pertains, and relying upon Pensacola Interstate Fair, Inc. v. Popovich, 389 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 1980), claim a right to assert this error on appeal. 1981It urges that the ruling was incorrect and, relying upon Pensacola Interstate Fair, Inc. v. Popovich, 389 So.2d 1179 (Fla.1980), it claims a right to assert the error on appeal. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
ARKY, FREED v. Bowmar Instrument Corp.
green
1 sentence2012For example, in Arky, Freed, Steams, Watson, Greer, Weaver & Harris, P.A. v. Bowmar Instrument Corp., 537 So.2d 561 (Fla.1988), the trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on a claim of legal malpractice but then permitted the plaintiff to amend the complaint to assert a different theory of malpractice. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Batas v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
green
2 sentences2001Co. of America, 281 A.D.2d 260 , 724 N.Y.S.2d 3 (2001); Viruet v. Rubin, 181 Misc.2d 535 , 695 N.Y.S.2d 487 (Sup.1999); Bohatch v. Butler & Binion, 905 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.App.1995), aff'd, 977 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.1998), we agree with the conclusion reached in Larsen that the purpose for which a corporation is formed (profit versus nonprofit) is immaterial. 2001Co. of America, 281 A.D.2d 260 , 724 N.Y.S.2d 3 (2001); Viruet v. Rubin, 181 Misc.2d 535 , 695 N.Y.S.2d 487 (Sup.1999); Bohatch v. Butler & Binion, 905 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.App.1995), aff'd, 977 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.1998), we agree with the conclusion reached in Larsen that the purpose for which a corporation is formed (profit versus nonprofit) is immaterial. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bohatch v. Butler & Binion
green
1 sentence2001Co. of America, 281 A.D.2d 260 , 724 N.Y.S.2d 3 (2001); Viruet v. Rubin, 181 Misc.2d 535 , 695 N.Y.S.2d 487 (Sup.1999); Bohatch v. Butler & Binion, 905 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.App.1995), aff'd, 977 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.1998), we agree with the conclusion reached in Larsen that the purpose for which a corporation is formed (profit versus nonprofit) is immaterial. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bohatch v. Butler & Binion
green
1 sentence2001Co. of America, 281 A.D.2d 260 , 724 N.Y.S.2d 3 (2001); Viruet v. Rubin, 181 Misc.2d 535 , 695 N.Y.S.2d 487 (Sup.1999); Bohatch v. Butler & Binion, 905 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.App.1995), aff'd, 977 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.1998), we agree with the conclusion reached in Larsen that the purpose for which a corporation is formed (profit versus nonprofit) is immaterial. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Viruet v. Rubin
neutral
2 sentences2001Co. of America, 281 A.D.2d 260 , 724 N.Y.S.2d 3 (2001); Viruet v. Rubin, 181 Misc.2d 535 , 695 N.Y.S.2d 487 (Sup.1999); Bohatch v. Butler & Binion, 905 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.App.1995), aff'd, 977 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.1998), we agree with the conclusion reached in Larsen that the purpose for which a corporation is formed (profit versus nonprofit) is immaterial. 2001Co. of America, 281 A.D.2d 260 , 724 N.Y.S.2d 3 (2001); Viruet v. Rubin, 181 Misc.2d 535 , 695 N.Y.S.2d 487 (Sup.1999); Bohatch v. Butler & Binion, 905 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.App.1995), aff'd, 977 S.W.2d 543 (Tex.1998), we agree with the conclusion reached in Larsen that the purpose for which a corporation is formed (profit versus nonprofit) is immaterial. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Fredericks v. State
green
2 sentences2000Appellant argues that child abuse by a parent is a non-existent crime and that, under Fredericks v. State, 675 So.2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), a "conviction of a non-existent crime is fundamental error mandating reversal even when the error was invited by the defendant ... by request for a jury instruction on the nonexistent offense." Id. at 990 . 2000Appellant argues that child abuse by a parent is a non-existent crime and that, under Fredericks v. State, 675 So.2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), a "conviction of a non-existent crime is fundamental error mandating reversal even when the error was invited by the defendant ... by request for a jury instruction on the nonexistent offense." Id. at 990 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Christiani v. Popovich
green
1 sentence1981In Popovich, supra, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the First District in Christiani v. Popovich, 363 So.2d 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), and held that the right of a judgment defendant to appeal from a judgment exonerating another codefendant is a necessary consequence of Florida's Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, Section 768.31(4)(f), Florida Statutes, which destroys inchoate contribution rights against an exonerated codefendant. [3] We agree with appellants that Popovich extends to judgment defendants the right to appeal adverse rulings exculpating co-defendants. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
McAulay v. Western Vermont Railroad
neutral
1 sentence1891Co. et al., 33 Vt., 311 , Chief-Justice Redfield, speaking for the court, said: “In these great public works the shortest period of clear acquiescence, so as fairly to lead the company to infer that the party intends to waive his claim for present payment, will be held to conclude the right to assert the claim in any such form as to stop the company in the progress of their works, and especially to stop the running of the road after it has been put in operation, whereby the public acquire important interests in its continuance. | 1 | 1891–1891 |
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.