9 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1971–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Voicestream Wireless v. US Communicationsgreen1 sentence2018See Betts v. FastFunding The Co., Inc., 60 So. 3d 1079, 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (citing Fonte v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 903 So. 2d 1019, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)); VoiceStream Wireless Corp. v. U.S. Commc’ns, Inc., 912 So. 2d 34, 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (footnote omitted) (“[W]here the [ ] agreement includes a severability clause, the presence of certain unenforceable provisions in the contract does not require a finding that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable.”). | 1 | 1 |
Fonte v. AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.green1 sentence2018See Betts v. FastFunding The Co., Inc., 60 So. 3d 1079, 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (citing Fonte v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 903 So. 2d 1019, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)); VoiceStream Wireless Corp. v. U.S. Commc’ns, Inc., 912 So. 2d 34, 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (footnote omitted) (“[W]here the [ ] agreement includes a severability clause, the presence of certain unenforceable provisions in the contract does not require a finding that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable.”). | 1 | 1 |
Townsend v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Betts v. FastFunding The Co., Inc., 60 So. 3d 1079, 1082 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (citing Fonte v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 903 So. 2d 1019, 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)); VoiceStream Wireless Corp. v. U.S. Commc’ns, Inc., 912 So. 2d 34, 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (footnote omitted) (“[W]here the [ ] agreement includes a severability clause, the presence of certain unenforceable provisions in the contract does not require a finding that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable.”). | 1 | 1 |
Biscardi v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Crim P. 3.152(b) (governing severance); Rimmer v. State, 59 So.3d 763, 788 (Fla.2010). “[T]he object of the severance rule is not to provide defendants with an absolute right of severance when requested, when they blame each other for the crime, but to assure each of them of a fair determination of his guilt or innocence.” Biscardi v. State, 511 So.2d 575, 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (citing O’Callaghan v. State, 429 So.2d 691, 695 (Fla.1983)). | 1 | 1 |
O'CALLAGHAN v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Crim P. 3.152(b) (governing severance); Rimmer v. State, 59 So.3d 763, 788 (Fla.2010). “[T]he object of the severance rule is not to provide defendants with an absolute right of severance when requested, when they blame each other for the crime, but to assure each of them of a fair determination of his guilt or innocence.” Biscardi v. State, 511 So.2d 575, 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (citing O’Callaghan v. State, 429 So.2d 691, 695 (Fla.1983)). | 1 | 1 |
Rimmer v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Crim P. 3.152(b) (governing severance); Rimmer v. State, 59 So.3d 763, 788 (Fla.2010). “[T]he object of the severance rule is not to provide defendants with an absolute right of severance when requested, when they blame each other for the crime, but to assure each of them of a fair determination of his guilt or innocence.” Biscardi v. State, 511 So.2d 575, 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (citing O’Callaghan v. State, 429 So.2d 691, 695 (Fla.1983)). | 1 | 1 |
Crossley v. Stategreen2 sentences2009In Crossley , the Supreme Court of Florida examined the severance rule and discussed the need to balance the “convenience and the preservation of the courts’ valuable resources” against the “defendant’s right to a fair trial.” 596 So.2d at 449-50 (noting that “practicality and efficiency cannot outweigh the defendant’s right to a fair trial”). “[T]he court must be careful that there is a meaningful relationship between the charges of two separate crimes.” Id. at 450 . 2009In Crossley , the Supreme Court of Florida examined the severance rule and discussed the need to balance the “convenience and the preservation of the courts’ valuable resources” against the “defendant’s right to a fair trial.” 596 So.2d at 449-50 (noting that “practicality and efficiency cannot outweigh the defendant’s right to a fair trial”). “[T]he court must be careful that there is a meaningful relationship between the charges of two separate crimes.” Id. at 450 . | 1 | 1 |
Travelers Exp., Inc. v. Acostagreen1 sentence2002Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.270(b), “[t]he court in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice may order a separate trial of any claim, cross claim, counterclaim, or third party claim, or any separate issue.... ” However, a severance under rule 1.270(b), “while residing in the sound discretion of the trial court upon an appropriate showing, should remain the exception.” Travelers Express, Inc. v. Acosta, 397 So.2d 733, 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Littlefieldgreen1 sentence1985Of course, the defendant is also entitled to seek a severance under rule 3.152(b)(l)(i) and in doing so the same factors may be considered by the trial court. 457 So.2d at 559, 560 . | 1 | 1 |
Mathews v. Stategreen1 sentence1984See Mathews v. State, 353 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). | 1 | 1 |
Durrett v. Davidsongreen1 sentence1971See Durrett v. Davidson, Fla.App. 1970, 239 So.2d 46 ; Stecher v. Pomeroy, Fla.App. 1971, 244 So.2d 488 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pearlman v. National Bank
green
1 sentence1993Cf. Pearlman v. National Bank of New York City, 600 So.2d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (severing foreclosure complaint for bench trial prior to jury trial on compulsory counterclaim is permissible). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
United States v. Anthony John Romanello, Victor Antonio Mendez and Gerald Thomas Vertucci
green
1 sentence1990A close reading of that case indicates that this court did not, as appellant argues, adopt the severance factors enounced by the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Romanello, 726 F.2d 173 (5th Cir.1984). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Stecher v. Pomeroy
neutral
1 sentence1971See Durrett v. Davidson, Fla.App. 1970, 239 So.2d 46 ; Stecher v. Pomeroy, Fla.App. 1971, 244 So.2d 488 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.