9 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCain v. Florida Power Corporationgreen2 sentences2016See McCain, 593 So.2d at 504 (“The judge is free to take this matter [ (the determination of proximate cause) ] from the fact-finder only where the facts are unequivocal, such as where the evidence supports no more than a single reasonable inference.”). 2002Due to the fact-intensive nature of this proximate cause analysis, it should generally be left to the fact-finder, unless reasonable minds could not differ that the injury was either "foreseeable" or "freakish." Id. at 504 ; Brito v. County of Palm Beach, 753 So.2d 109, 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 735 So.2d 1283 (Fla.1999); Dadic v. Schneider, 722 So.2d 921, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). | 1 | 2 |
Security Insurance Company v. Rosenberggreen2 sentences2004An example of a proximate cause analysis is Security Insurance Co. v. Rosenberg, 227 Ky. 314 , 12 S.W.2d 688 (Ct.App.1928). 2004An example of a proximate cause analysis is Security Insurance Co. v. Rosenberg, 227 Ky. 314 , 12 S.W.2d 688 (Ct.App.1928). | 1 | 1 |
Dadic v. Schneidergreen1 sentence2002Due to the fact-intensive nature of this proximate cause analysis, it should generally be left to the fact-finder, unless reasonable minds could not differ that the injury was either "foreseeable" or "freakish." Id. at 504 ; Brito v. County of Palm Beach, 753 So.2d 109, 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 735 So.2d 1283 (Fla.1999); Dadic v. Schneider, 722 So.2d 921, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Brito v. County of Palm Beachgreen1 sentence2002Due to the fact-intensive nature of this proximate cause analysis, it should generally be left to the fact-finder, unless reasonable minds could not differ that the injury was either "foreseeable" or "freakish." Id. at 504 ; Brito v. County of Palm Beach, 753 So.2d 109, 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 735 So.2d 1283 (Fla.1999); Dadic v. Schneider, 722 So.2d 921, 923 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Todd v. State
green
2 sentences2004Similarly, the Fifth District applied this proximate cause principle to a criminal case in Todd v. State, 594 So.2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). 2003Similarly, the Fifth District applied this proximate cause principle to a criminal case in Todd v. State, 594 So.2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). | 2 | 2003–2004 |
Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.
green
2 sentences2004As the Supreme Court stated in Sedima [ Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 , 105 S.Ct. 3275 , 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985)], "the plaintiff only has standing if, and can only recover to the extent that, he has been injured in his business or property by the conduct constituting the violation." The Court went on to hold that the plaintiff's damages must "flow from the commission of the predicate acts." Section 1964(c), as interpreted by the Supreme Court and lower courts, thus imposes a proximate cause requirement: the plaintiff's injury must have been proximately caused by the commissi 2004As the Supreme Court stated in Sedima [ Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479 , 105 S.Ct. 3275 , 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985)], "the plaintiff only has standing if, and can only recover to the extent that, he has been injured in his business or property by the conduct constituting the violation." The Court went on to hold that the plaintiff's damages must "flow from the commission of the predicate acts." Section 1964(c), as interpreted by the Supreme Court and lower courts, thus imposes a proximate cause requirement: the plaintiff's injury must have been proximately caused by the commissi | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Trianon Park Condominium v. City of Hialeah
green
1 sentence1989Trianon Park Condominium Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 468 So.2d 912 (Fla.1986). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Slavin v. Kay
green
1 sentence1985Defendant contends that failure by the owner of the building to make corrections once it knew of a defect was the proximate cause of plaintiff Ronald Calvin’s injury, and that defendant was entitled to a proximate cause instruction on authority of Slavin v. Kay, 108 So.2d 462 (Fla.1959). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Winner v. Sharp
green
1 sentence1981Winner v. Sharp, 43 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1949); Quest, supra; 3 - M Elec. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Quest v. Joseph
green
1 sentence1981Winner v. Sharp, 43 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1949); Quest, supra; 3 - M Elec. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.