10 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Galstyan v. Galstyangreen1 sentence2020Insurance and Survivor Benefit to Protect Alimony “We review a trial court’s imposition of a security requirement [to protect alimony] for an abuse of discretion.” Galstyan v. Galstyan, 85 So. 3d 561, 566 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Thornton v. Jabeengreen1 sentence2016See Thornton v. Jabeen, 683 So.2d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Irwin v. Walker, 468 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). | 1 | 1 |
Godwin v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Co. v. Paton, 150 So.3d 804, 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (holding that a jury verdict in excess of policy limits fixes the amount of damages in a first-party bad faith action); Lund v. Dep’t of Health, 708 So.2d 645, 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (citing Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla.1992)) ("A generally recognized exception precluding dismissal of an otherwise moot case occurs in situations wherein collateral legal consequences affecting the rights of a party may flow from the issues to be decided.”). 3 .Security’s defense was that Arnold’s physical condition was caused by previous injuries | 1 | 1 |
Lund v. Department of Healthgreen1 sentence2015Co. v. Paton, 150 So.3d 804, 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (holding that a jury verdict in excess of policy limits fixes the amount of damages in a first-party bad faith action); Lund v. Dep’t of Health, 708 So.2d 645, 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (citing Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla.1992)) ("A generally recognized exception precluding dismissal of an otherwise moot case occurs in situations wherein collateral legal consequences affecting the rights of a party may flow from the issues to be decided.”). 3 .Security’s defense was that Arnold’s physical condition was caused by previous injuries | 1 | 1 |
Roberto v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Co. v. Paton, 150 So.3d 804, 807 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (holding that a jury verdict in excess of policy limits fixes the amount of damages in a first-party bad faith action); Lund v. Dep’t of Health, 708 So.2d 645, 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (citing Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla.1992)) ("A generally recognized exception precluding dismissal of an otherwise moot case occurs in situations wherein collateral legal consequences affecting the rights of a party may flow from the issues to be decided.”). 3 .Security’s defense was that Arnold’s physical condition was caused by previous injuries | 1 | 1 |
Watford v. Watfordgreen1 sentence2012Watford v. Watford, 605 So.2d 1313, 1315 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Detroit Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen2 sentences2007See Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 313-15 , 99 S.Ct. 1123 , 59 L.Ed.2d 333 (1979). 2007See Detroit Edison Co. v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301, 313-15 , 99 S.Ct. 1123 , 59 L.Ed.2d 333 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. Las Ovas Co.green2 sentences1987See Davis v. Las Ovas Company, 227 U.S. 80, 85-87 , 33 S.Ct. 197, 198-99 , 57 L.Ed. 426, 430 (1913); Donovan v. Dixon, 261 Minn. 455 , 113 N.W.2d 432 (1962); Mary Pickford Company, et al. v. Bayly Bros., Inc., 12 Cal.2d 501 , 86 P.2d 102, 108 (1939). 1987See Davis v. Las Ovas Company, 227 U.S. 80, 85-87 , 33 S.Ct. 197, 198-99 , 57 L.Ed. 426, 430 (1913); Donovan v. Dixon, 261 Minn. 455 , 113 N.W.2d 432 (1962); Mary Pickford Company, et al. v. Bayly Bros., Inc., 12 Cal.2d 501 , 86 P.2d 102, 108 (1939). | 1 | 1 |
Mary Pickford Co. v. Bayly Bros., Inc.green2 sentences1987See Davis v. Las Ovas Company, 227 U.S. 80, 85-87 , 33 S.Ct. 197, 198-99 , 57 L.Ed. 426, 430 (1913); Donovan v. Dixon, 261 Minn. 455 , 113 N.W.2d 432 (1962); Mary Pickford Company, et al. v. Bayly Bros., Inc., 12 Cal.2d 501 , 86 P.2d 102, 108 (1939). 1987See Davis v. Las Ovas Company, 227 U.S. 80, 85-87 , 33 S.Ct. 197, 198-99 , 57 L.Ed. 426, 430 (1913); Donovan v. Dixon, 261 Minn. 455 , 113 N.W.2d 432 (1962); Mary Pickford Company, et al. v. Bayly Bros., Inc., 12 Cal.2d 501 , 86 P.2d 102, 108 (1939). | 1 | 1 |
RESNICK DEVELOPERS SOUTH v. Clericigreen1 sentence1984See § 713.24(1), Fla. Stat. (1981) and Resnick Developers South, Inc. v. Clerici, Inc., 340 So.2d 1194 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Irwin v. Walker
neutral
1 sentence2016See Thornton v. Jabeen, 683 So.2d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Irwin v. Walker, 468 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Krathen
green
1 sentence1998It is implicit in the trial court's findings that the mistake made by counsel was not inexcusable, and that the only reason it denied Security's motion was because of BMW, 471 So.2d 585 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
City of Miami v. Lewis
green
1 sentence1993And see, AGO 92-55 in which this office concluded that an ordinance of the City of Pinellas Park requiring prepayment of gasoline purchases made between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. was not preempted by s. 812.1725 , F.S. (1992 Supp.), since the ordinance operated to protect a business against economic loss and was not a security standard to protect the safety of employees or patrons of a convenience business. 6 104 So.2d 70 , 72 (3 D.C.A. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
SCG Travel, Inc. v. Westminster Financial Corp.
green
2 sentences1992In support of its position, McKenney's cites SCG Travel, Inc. v. Westminster Financial Corp., 583 So.2d 723 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), which case Expedia attempts to distinguish. 1992The Fourth District reversed, holding that the security requirement of subsection (2) was applicable because the language of the subsection was broad enough to include "any ... legal or equitable basis for suspending the effectiveness of a final judgment." SCG Travel, 583 So.2d at 726 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Donovan v. Dixon
green
2 sentences1987See Davis v. Las Ovas Company, 227 U.S. 80, 85-87 , 33 S.Ct. 197, 198-99 , 57 L.Ed. 426, 430 (1913); Donovan v. Dixon, 261 Minn. 455 , 113 N.W.2d 432 (1962); Mary Pickford Company, et al. v. Bayly Bros., Inc., 12 Cal.2d 501 , 86 P.2d 102, 108 (1939). 1987See Davis v. Las Ovas Company, 227 U.S. 80, 85-87 , 33 S.Ct. 197, 198-99 , 57 L.Ed. 426, 430 (1913); Donovan v. Dixon, 261 Minn. 455 , 113 N.W.2d 432 (1962); Mary Pickford Company, et al. v. Bayly Bros., Inc., 12 Cal.2d 501 , 86 P.2d 102, 108 (1939). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.