74 Florida opinions name it 4 courts 1957–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chase v. Cowartgreen2 sentences2025See Chase v. Cowart, 102 So. 2d 147, 152 (Fla. 1958) (recognizing that subsections (5), (6) and (9) contain limitations on the home rule power). 1985We affirmed this principle announced in section 9 in Chase v. Cowart, 102 So.2d 147, 153 (Fla. 1958), wherein we said: [N]or does any other portion of Section 11, empower the electors of Dade County by adoption of the home rule charter, or the Board of County Commissioners acting thereunder, to relieve the Metropolitan government of Dade County from performing any functions or duties imposed on the government, people or property in Dade County and on the government or people in any other one or more counties in the State, either by general act of the Legislature or the Constitution. | 2 | 6 |
BOARD OF CTY. COM'RS OF DADE CTY. v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2025Comm’rs of Dade Cnty. v. Wilson, 386 So. 2d 556, 560 (Fla. 1980) (“[T]he provisions of the Home Rule Charter and the ordinances adopted pursuant thereto must be in accordance with general law unless there is express constitutional authorization otherwise.”); 23 Seminole Rock Prods., Inc. v. Town of Medley, 180 So. 2d 457, 460 (Fla. 1965) (“We see no express authorization in [the Home Rule Amendment] that could be taken as immunizing the home rule charter, ordinances enacted in pursuance thereof, or charters of Dade County municipalities from the operation of the constitution or of general law. 2014Comm’rs of Dade Cnty. v. Wilson, 386 So.2d 556, 559 (Fla. 1980) (“Article VIII, section 11 of the Constitution of 1885 authorized the creation of a metropolitan government for Dade County and granted to the electors of that county the power to adopt a home rule charter.”); see also Art. | 2 | 2 |
Speer v. Olsongreen2 sentences2001In sum, it is my opinion that, in light of the home rule powers granted to counties by the constitution and statutes, the board of county commissioners may expend county funds to pay the cost of a traffic study provided that it first makes appropriate legislative findings as to the purpose of the expenditure and the benefits that would accrue to the county. 8 Sincerely, Robert A. Butterworth Attorney General RAB/tgh 1 367 So.2d 207 , 211 (Fla. 1978). 2 And see, s. 125.01 (1)(w), Fla. Stat. (county commission may perform any other acts not inconsistent with law which are in the common interest 1984See also, AGO 81-48 (discussing Ch. 71-14, Laws of Florida, codified in the main as s 125.01 , F.S., and Speer v. Olson, 367 So.2d 207 [Fla. 1978], and concluding that, in the absence of any provision of general or special law restricting or prohibiting a noncharter county from adopting a home rule ordinance to allow certain payments to its employees, noncharter counties have authority to enact ordinances providing for such payments to county employees). | 1 | 4 |
New York v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1998In New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 , 110 S.Ct. 1640 , 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990), the Supreme Court later addressed the question of whether a violation of Payton automatically implicates the exclusionary rule, holding: [Wjhere the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the State’s use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton . 1998In New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 , 110 S.Ct. 1640 , 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990), the Supreme Court later addressed the question of whether a violation of Payton automatically implicates the exclusionary rule, holding: [Wjhere the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the State’s use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton . | 1 | 4 |
City of Sweetwater v. Dade Countygreen2 sentences2025One such difference is Dade County’s power to enact ordinances, when expressly authorized by the home rule amendment, which conflict with the state constitution or with state law.”); City of Sweetwater v. Dade Cnty., 343 So. 2d 953, 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (“The matter of changing boundaries of municipalities is one of the areas of autonomy conferred on Dade County by the Home Rule Amendment, with the result that the method provided therefor[e] by the Home Rule Charter, pursuant to authorization by to Home Rule Amendment, is effective and exclusive, notwithstanding the existence from time to ti 1981VIII, § 11(5), Fla. Const. (1885), which reads as follows: (5) Nothing in this section shall limit or restrict the power of the Legislature to enact general laws which shall relate to Dade County and any other one or more counties in the state of Florida or to any municipality in Dade County and any other one or more municipalities of the State of Florida, and the home rule charter provided for therein shall not conflict with any provision of this Constitution nor of any applicable general laws non applying to Dade County and any other one or more counties of the State of Florida except as exp | 1 | 2 |
City of Miami Beach v. Rocio Corp.green2 sentences1997VIII , s. 2 (b), Fla. Const.; and Speer v. Olson, 367 So.2d 207 , 211 (Fla. 1978) (first sentence of s. 125.01 (1), Fla. Stat., grants to the governing body of a county the full power to carry on county government, and unless the Legislature has preempted a particular subject, county governing body has full authority to act through the exercise of home rule power). 7 See, e.g ., City of Miami Beach v. Rocio Corporation , 404 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. for rev. den ., 408 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1981) (while concurrent legislation may be enacted by both state and local governments in areas no 1982Compare , City of Miami Beach v. Rocio Corp., 404 So.2d 1066 (3 D.C.A. | 1 | 2 |
Dickinson v. Board of Public Instructiongreen2 sentences1985See Dickinson v. Board of Public Instruction of Dade County, 217 So.2d 553 (Fla. 1968). 1974One of my predecessors in office, in answering a similar question with respect to the scope of those powers, concluded in AGO 061-51, that: "We do not believe that the legislature may, subsequent to the adoption of a home rule charter pursuant to s. 11, Article VIII, enact any statute or law, applicable to Dade County alone, or so long as Dade County is the only county within the purview of the statute or law, relating to the public schools, the County Superintendent of Public Instruction, or the Board of Public Instruction, of said Dade County, and this rule appears applicable to enactments d | 1 | 2 |
Betty Caitlin Nicole Smith v. Zachary Taylor Danielgreen1 sentence2026See McIndoo, 159 So. 3d at 228–31 (rejecting a court’s ruling that it lacked jurisdiction, and holding that it should have granted relief under section 61.526—the “proper statute”—reasoning that the home state rule “applies to an initial child custody determination,” not to a petition asking a Florida court to domesticate an out-of-state order); see also Smith v. Daniel, 246 So. 3d 1279 , 1280–81, 1281 n.3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (citing section 61.526(1)—which “requires a Florida court to ‘recognize and enforce a child custody determination of a court of another state’”—in holding that a court er | 1 | 1 |
Welch v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See McIndoo, 159 So. 3d at 228–31 (rejecting a court’s ruling that it lacked jurisdiction, and holding that it should have granted relief under section 61.526—the “proper statute”—reasoning that the home state rule “applies to an initial child custody determination,” not to a petition asking a Florida court to domesticate an out-of-state order); see also Smith v. Daniel, 246 So. 3d 1279 , 1280–81, 1281 n.3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (citing section 61.526(1)—which “requires a Florida court to ‘recognize and enforce a child custody determination of a court of another state’”—in holding that a court er | 1 | 1 |
HILLSBOROUGH ASS'N ETC. v. City of Temple Terracegreen1 sentence2026See § 166.041(3)(c); Hillsborough Ass'n for Retarded Citizens v. City of Temple Terrace, 332 So. 2d 610, 612-13 (Fla. 1976) (providing that the "zoning power of municipalities . . . is derived from Article VIII, s 2(b) of the Florida Constitution by way of the" home rule act of section 166.021). 4 There is no language in article VIII, section 2(b), limiting a municipality's ability to 4 Numerous other statutes codify local government's power and responsibility to regulate land. | 1 | 1 |
Nadine Mcindoo v. Ashley Atkinsongreen2 sentences2026See Aluise v. Spanos, 424 So. 3d 513 , 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2025); Bravo v. Johnson, 396 So. 3d 874 , 876–77 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024); McIndoo v. Atkinson, 159 So. 3d 227 , 230–31 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). 2026See McIndoo, 159 So. 3d at 228–31 (rejecting a court’s ruling that it lacked jurisdiction, and holding that it should have granted relief under section 61.526—the “proper statute”—reasoning that the home state rule “applies to an initial child custody determination,” not to a petition asking a Florida court to domesticate an out-of-state order); see also Smith v. Daniel, 246 So. 3d 1279 , 1280–81, 1281 n.3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (citing section 61.526(1)—which “requires a Florida court to ‘recognize and enforce a child custody determination of a court of another state’”—in holding that a court er | 1 | 1 |
Seminole Rock Products, Inc. v. Town of Medleygreen2 sentences2025Comm’rs of Dade Cnty. v. Wilson, 386 So. 2d 556, 560 (Fla. 1980) (“[T]he provisions of the Home Rule Charter and the ordinances adopted pursuant thereto must be in accordance with general law unless there is express constitutional authorization otherwise.”); 23 Seminole Rock Prods., Inc. v. Town of Medley, 180 So. 2d 457, 460 (Fla. 1965) (“We see no express authorization in [the Home Rule Amendment] that could be taken as immunizing the home rule charter, ordinances enacted in pursuance thereof, or charters of Dade County municipalities from the operation of the constitution or of general law. 2025Comm’rs of Dade Cnty. v. Wilson, 386 So. 2d 556, 560 (Fla. 1980) (“[T]he provisions of the Home Rule Charter and the ordinances adopted pursuant thereto must be in accordance with general law unless there is express constitutional authorization otherwise.”); 23 Seminole Rock Prods., Inc. v. Town of Medley, 180 So. 2d 457, 460 (Fla. 1965) (“We see no express authorization in [the Home Rule Amendment] that could be taken as immunizing the home rule charter, ordinances enacted in pursuance thereof, or charters of Dade County municipalities from the operation of the constitution or of general law. | 1 | 1 |
Miami-Dade County ex rel. Walthour v. Malibu Lodging Investments, LLCgreen1 sentence2018Walthour v. Malibu Lodging Investments, LLC, 64 So. 3d 716, 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. City of Jacksonvillegreen1 sentence2011Id. at 89. | 1 | 1 |
| Lowe v. Broward Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Gattogreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Sunrise v. DCA Homes, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Office Realty Co. v. EHRINGERgreen1 sentence2011Office Realty Co. v. Ehinger, 46 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla.1950)). | 1 | 1 |
| Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincentgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Minnesota v. Cartergreen | 1 | 1 |
| McCauley v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sarasota Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Baker v. Maytaggreen | 1 | 1 |
| S & J TRANSPORTATION, INC. v. Gordongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pinellas County v. Eight is Enough in Pinellasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Florida ex rel. Worthington v. Cannongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Carothersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bambergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brunner v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Steppgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hoffkins v. City of Miamigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dade County v. Dade County League of Municipalitiesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Broward County v. Plantation Imports, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Miami Beach v. Forte Towers, Inc.
green
2 sentences1991As the court stated in City of Miami Beach v. Forte Towers, 305 So.2d 764 (Fla. 1974), the purpose of the home rule power is to eliminate the necessity of going to the legislature to obtain a local bill. 1982Section 166.021 (4), F.S., states that the intent of the Legislature in enacting Ch. 166 , F.S., was to `. . . extend to municipalities the exercise of powers for municipal governmental, corporate, or proprietary purposes not expressly prohibited by the constitution, general or special law, or county charter and to remove any limitations, judicially imposed or otherwise, on the exercise of home rule powers other than those so expressly prohibited.' Applicable Florida Supreme Court cases which address the home rule powers of municipalities under s 166.021 , F.S., are City of Miami Beach v. Fort | 3 | 1976–1991 |
Dade County v. Young Democratic Club of Dade County
green
2 sentences1981VIII, § 11(5), Fla. Const. (1885), which reads as follows: (5) Nothing in this section shall limit or restrict the power of the Legislature to enact general laws which shall relate to Dade County and any other one or more counties in the state of Florida or to any municipality in Dade County and any other one or more municipalities of the State of Florida, and the home rule charter provided for therein shall not conflict with any provision of this Constitution nor of any applicable general laws non applying to Dade County and any other one or more counties of the State of Florida except as exp 1960In Dade County v. Young Democratic Club of Dade County, Fla. 1958, 104 So. 2d 636 , the Supreme Court sustained and upheld the validity of charter provisions relating to the method of electing county commissioners in Dade County, which provisions are in direct conflict with constitutional provisions and general laws. | 3 | 1958–1981 |
Gray v. Golden
green
2 sentences1958Upon adoption of this home rule charter by the electors this method shall be exclusive and the Legislature shall have no power to amend or repeal the charter of any municipal corporation in Dade County. " (All emphasis above is supplied, and paragraph designations are as in Florida Statutes 1957, F.S.A.) In Gray v. Golden, Fla. 1956, 89 So.2d 785, 791 , this court declined to sustain a decree of the lower court holding, inter alia, that the provisions of the Resolution proposing the Home Rule Amendment were so inconsistent, conflicting and contradictory as to invalidate the entire proposed ame 1958As we said in Gray v. Golden, supra, at page 790: "* * * These paragraphs emphasize the supremacy of the legislature in lawmaking power, insure the paramount authority of the state, the jurisdiction of state agencies, bureaus and commissions in Dade County and withal declare the purpose of the proposed amendment is to grant home rule in local affairs only and to preserve the supremacy of the Constitution and general laws relating to counties, except as expressly set forth in the proposed amendment. * * *" [Emphasis added.] The pertinent portion of subsection (1) (c), which we hold furnishes th | 3 | 1957–1958 |
Payton v. New York
green
2 sentences1994With respect to appellant’s confession, we observe that New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 , 110 S.Ct. 1640 , 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990), held that where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the use of a statement made outside the suspect’s home, even though the statement follows an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). 1994With respect to appellant’s confession, we observe that New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 , 110 S.Ct. 1640 , 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990), held that where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the use of a statement made outside the suspect’s home, even though the statement follows an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). | 2 | 1984–1994 |
Miami Shores Village v. Cowart
green
2 sentences1981VIII, § 11(5), Fla. Const. (1885), which reads as follows: (5) Nothing in this section shall limit or restrict the power of the Legislature to enact general laws which shall relate to Dade County and any other one or more counties in the state of Florida or to any municipality in Dade County and any other one or more municipalities of the State of Florida, and the home rule charter provided for therein shall not conflict with any provision of this Constitution nor of any applicable general laws non applying to Dade County and any other one or more counties of the State of Florida except as exp 1967The court then correctly reasoned — “Once transferred to the county, these municipal assessments and collection functions ceased to be municipal functions and became county functions.” A comparison may be seen from a casual reading of Miami Shores Village v. Cowart, Fla. 1958, 108 So.2d 468 , holding that the municipal function of traffic regulations and control having been absorbed by the county the cities had been relieved of such functions. | 2 | 1967–1981 |
In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor
green
2 sentences1981VIII, § 11(5), Fla. Const. (1885), which reads as follows: (5) Nothing in this section shall limit or restrict the power of the Legislature to enact general laws which shall relate to Dade County and any other one or more counties in the state of Florida or to any municipality in Dade County and any other one or more municipalities of the State of Florida, and the home rule charter provided for therein shall not conflict with any provision of this Constitution nor of any applicable general laws non applying to Dade County and any other one or more counties of the State of Florida except as exp 1975This charter: (a) Shall fix the boundaries of each county commission district, provide a method for changing them from time to time, and fix the number, terms and compensation of the commissioners, and their method of election. * * * * * * (i) Shall provide a method for the recall of any commissioner and a method for initiative and referendum, including the initiation of and referendum on ordinances and the amendment or revision of the home rule charter, provided, however, that the power of the Governor and Senate relating to the suspension and removal of officers provided for in this Constitu | 2 | 1975–1981 |
State Ex Rel. Dade County v. Dickinson
green
2 sentences1981Dade County v. Dickinson, 230 So.2d 130 (Fla. 1969), this Court held that nothing in the Dade County Home Rule Amendment allowed that county to exceed the ten-mill constitutional cap on county taxes. 1975VII, s. 9(b), State Const., providing that in addition to the maximum 10 mills for all county purposes, a county may be authorized to "levy additional taxes within the limits fixed for municipal purposes." This constitutional language was relied on in Dade County v. Dickinson, 230 So.2d 130 , 135-6 , (Fla. 1970), as the basis for a uniform county levy, the Court noting that such "home-rule provisions in Article VII [the tax article] . . . were . . . a means of accommodating home-rule areas within the taxation limits." The home rule areas cited specifically by the court at this point in the opi | 2 | 1975–1981 |
State v. Dade County
green
2 sentences1974In State v. Dade County, 127 So.2d 881 (Fla. 1961), the Supreme Court held that Dade County, by virtue of the home rule amendment and charter, had the powers granted municipalities to borrow money under Ch. 184, F.S., even though the relevant statute appeared on its face to grant powers only to municipalities. 1974Dade County is included in the class described as "all municipalities" in statutes relating to "the powers conferred now or hereafter by general law upon municipalities." Also, in State v. Dade County, 127 So.2d 881 (Fla. 1961), the Supreme Court held that Dade County, by virtue of the home rule amendment and charter, had the powers granted municipalities to borrow money under Ch. 184, F. S., even though that statute appeared on its face to grant powers only to municipalities. | 2 | 1974–1974 |
Armstrong v. City of Tampa
green
2 sentences1969This and other decisions have to that extent qualified the earlier requirement in Armstrong v. City of Tampa, Fla. 1958, 106 So.2d 407 , that the decree undertake to explain or define the constitutional language." In an opinion since Boswell, we referred to Armstrong as authority on this question *317 [Callendar v. State, 181 So.2d 529 (Fla. 1966)]. 1964This and other decisions have to that extent qualified the earlier requirement in Armstrong v. City of Tampa, Fla. 1958, 106 So.2d 407 , that the decree undertake to explain or define the constitutional language. [4] For annotation of Florida cases applying the comparable rule of statutory preemption controlling local regulation by municipal corporations see 23 Fla.Jur. 118 and cumulative supplement. | 2 | 1964–1969 |
State Ex Rel. Landis v. Harris
green
1 sentence2025By contrast, “[a] special law is one relating to, or designed to operate upon, 19 (5) Nothing in this section shall limit or restrict the power of the Legislature to enact general laws which shall relate to Dade County and any other one or more counties in the state of Florida or to any municipality in Dade County and any other one or more municipalities of the State of Florida, and the home rule charter provided for herein shall not conflict with any provision of this Constitution nor of any applicable general laws now applying to Dade County and any other one or more counties of the State of | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Metropolitan Dade County v. City of Miami
green
1 sentence2025“One such difference is Dade County’s power to enact ordinances, when expressly authorized by the home rule amendment, which conflict with the state constitution or with state law.” Id. (citing Art. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State Farm Fire & Cas. v. CTC DEVELOPMENT
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 1073 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
City of Aventura v. Masone
green
2 sentences2014I would, instead, adopt the opinion of the Third District in City of Aventura, 89 So.3d 233 , and conclude that the ordinances enacted by the cities of Orlando and Aventura were proper exercises of the municipal governments’ home rule authority. 2014I would, instead, adopt the opinion of the Third District in City of Aventura, 89 So. 3d 233 , and conclude that the ordinances enacted by the cities of Orlando and Aventura were proper exercises of the municipal governments’ home rule authority. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
City of Orlando v. Udowychenko
green
2 sentences2014I would quash the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in City of Orlando v. Udowychenko, 98 So.3d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), adopt the well-reasoned opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal in City of Aventura v. Masone, 89 So.3d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and hold that the red light camera ordinances enacted by the cities of Orlando and Aventura prior to 2010 were proper exercises of their municipal home rule authority. 2014I would quash the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in City of Orlando v. Udowychenko, 98 So. 3d 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), adopt the well-reasoned opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal in City of Aventura v. Masone, 89 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), and hold that the red light camera ordinances enacted by the cities of Orlando and Aventura prior to 2010 were proper exercises of their municipal home rule authority. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| City of Lake Wales v. Lamar Adv. Ass'n green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Lamar Advertising of Mobile, Inc. v. CITY OF LAKELAND, FL green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Department of Community Affairs v. Moorman green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Inn. Motor Lodge v. CITY, NEW SMYRNA BEACH green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego
green
2 sentences2011See City of Sunrise, 421 So.2d at 1085 ; see also Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 805 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 ; Metromedia, Inc., 458 U.S. 490 , 101 S.Ct. 2882 , 69 L.Ed.2d 800 ; Lamar Adver., 980 F.Supp. at 1459 ; City of Lake Wales, 414 So.2d at 1032 ; Moorman, 664 So.2d at 933 . 2011See City of Sunrise, 421 So.2d at 1085 ; see also Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. at 805 , 104 S.Ct. 2118 ; Metromedia, Inc., 458 U.S. 490 , 101 S.Ct. 2882 , 69 L.Ed.2d 800 ; Lamar Adver., 980 F.Supp. at 1459 ; City of Lake Wales, 414 So.2d at 1032 ; Moorman, 664 So.2d at 933 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Mallory green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| The Florida Bar v. Springer green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Soca v. State green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| City of Miami Beach v. Fleetwood Hotel, Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| City of Jacksonville v. Cook green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Collins ex rel. Jackson County v. Jackson County neutral | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Padgett v. Bay County green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Rinzler v. Carson green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Edwards v. John O. Evans Construction Co. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Fixel v. Clevenger green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Thayer v. State green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| City of St. Petersburg v. Carter green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Hansen v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Craft v. State green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Mense v. State neutral | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Madison County v. Foxx green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Hanna v. City of Palm Bay green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Pridgeon v. Folsom green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Gavagan v. Marshall green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Burnsed v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad Company green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Finn v. Finn green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.