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.
9 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1930–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chiusolo v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2007With that standard in mind, we recognize that "[o]ne of several purposes underlying the doctrine of lis pendens is that, when a suit is filed that could affect title in property, some notice should be given to future purchasers or encumbrancers of that property." Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So.2d 491, 492 (Fla.1993) (citing De Pass v. Chitty, 90 Fla. 77 , 105 So. 148 (1925)). 1998The Florida Supreme Court, with respect to a lis pendens, in Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So.2d 491 (Fla.1993), explained: One of several purposes underlying the doctrine of lis pendens is that, when a suit is filed that could affect title in property, some notice should be given to future purchasers or encumbrancers of that property. *1115 This serves the purposes of protecting those purchasers or encumbrancers from becoming embroiled in the dispute, and of protecting the plaintiff from intervening liens that could impair any property rights claimed and also from possible extinguishment of the pl | 1 | 2 |
Golden State Bottling Co. v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen1 sentence2021ANALYSIS Under the doctrine of lis pendens, “[p]ersons acquiring an interest in property that is a subject of litigation are bound by, or entitled to the benefit of, a subsequent judgment.” Golden State Bottling Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 414 U.S. 168, 179 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Steckelgreen1 sentence2010See § 48.23, Fla. Stat. (2008); see also Taylor, 944 So.2d at 497 ; Henry P. Trawick Jr., Trawick’s, Fla. Practice & Procedure § 8:31 (2007-2008 ed.). | 1 | 1 |
Hunter v. Bank of New York (In Re Anderson)green1 sentence2010Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Town of Washington Grove, 408 Md. 37 , 968 A.2d 552, 583 (2009) (stating that “[i]n our state, the lis pendens doctrine has its foundations in common law and remains mostly there ... [and] the only procedural reference to lis pendens is set out in [rule], which contains no substantive modification of the common law”); Beers v. Ross, 137 Wash.App. 566 , 154 P.3d 277, 282 (2007) (reiterating that in Washington, lis pendens is “procedural only; it does not create substantive rights in the person recording the notice”); In re Anderson, 266 B.R. 128, 134 (Bankr. | 1 | 1 |
Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission v. Town of Washington Grovegreen2 sentences2010Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Town of Washington Grove, 408 Md. 37 , 968 A.2d 552, 583 (2009) (stating that “[i]n our state, the lis pendens doctrine has its foundations in common law and remains mostly there ... [and] the only procedural reference to lis pendens is set out in [rule], which contains no substantive modification of the common law”); Beers v. Ross, 137 Wash.App. 566 , 154 P.3d 277, 282 (2007) (reiterating that in Washington, lis pendens is “procedural only; it does not create substantive rights in the person recording the notice”); In re Anderson, 266 B.R. 128, 134 (Bankr. 2010Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Town of Washington Grove, 408 Md. 37 , 968 A.2d 552, 583 (2009) (stating that “[i]n our state, the lis pendens doctrine has its foundations in common law and remains mostly there ... [and] the only procedural reference to lis pendens is set out in [rule], which contains no substantive modification of the common law”); Beers v. Ross, 137 Wash.App. 566 , 154 P.3d 277, 282 (2007) (reiterating that in Washington, lis pendens is “procedural only; it does not create substantive rights in the person recording the notice”); In re Anderson, 266 B.R. 128, 134 (Bankr. | 1 | 1 |
Beers v. Rossgreen1 sentence2010Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Town of Washington Grove, 408 Md. 37 , 968 A.2d 552, 583 (2009) (stating that “[i]n our state, the lis pendens doctrine has its foundations in common law and remains mostly there ... [and] the only procedural reference to lis pendens is set out in [rule], which contains no substantive modification of the common law”); Beers v. Ross, 137 Wash.App. 566 , 154 P.3d 277, 282 (2007) (reiterating that in Washington, lis pendens is “procedural only; it does not create substantive rights in the person recording the notice”); In re Anderson, 266 B.R. 128, 134 (Bankr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Depass v. Chitty
green
2 sentences2007With that standard in mind, we recognize that "[o]ne of several purposes underlying the doctrine of lis pendens is that, when a suit is filed that could affect title in property, some notice should be given to future purchasers or encumbrancers of that property." Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So.2d 491, 492 (Fla.1993) (citing De Pass v. Chitty, 90 Fla. 77 , 105 So. 148 (1925)). 2007With that standard in mind, we recognize that "[o]ne of several purposes underlying the doctrine of lis pendens is that, when a suit is filed that could affect title in property, some notice should be given to future purchasers or encumbrancers of that property." Chiusolo v. Kennedy, 614 So.2d 491, 492 (Fla.1993) (citing De Pass v. Chitty, 90 Fla. 77 , 105 So. 148 (1925)). | 4 | 1993–2017 |
Murray v. Ballou
green
1 sentence2026The lis pendens doctrine originates from the civil law, but took root in common law, and first was adopted as part of this country’s law in Chancellor Kent’s opinion in Murray v. Ballou, 1 Johns. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Fallon Rahima Jallali v. Christiana Trust, etc.
green
1 sentence2016Jallali v. Christiana Tr., 184 So. 3d 559 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). 2 One of several purposes underlying the doctrine of lis pendens is that, when a suit is filed that could affect title in property, some notice should be given to future purchasers or encumbrancers of that property. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Beers v. Ross
green
1 sentence2010Capital Park & Planning Comm’n v. Town of Washington Grove, 408 Md. 37 , 968 A.2d 552, 583 (2009) (stating that “[i]n our state, the lis pendens doctrine has its foundations in common law and remains mostly there ... [and] the only procedural reference to lis pendens is set out in [rule], which contains no substantive modification of the common law”); Beers v. Ross, 137 Wash.App. 566 , 154 P.3d 277, 282 (2007) (reiterating that in Washington, lis pendens is “procedural only; it does not create substantive rights in the person recording the notice”); In re Anderson, 266 B.R. 128, 134 (Bankr. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Leuders v. Thomas
neutral
1 sentence1930Such is the general doctrine of lis pendens. " Leuders v. Thomas, 35 Fla. 518 , 17 So. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
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.