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 1991–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kirkpatrick v. Parkergreen2 sentences2013In its classic formulation, the in pari delicto defense was narrowly limited to situations where the plaintiff truly bore at least substantially equal responsibility for his injury, because “in cases where both parties are in delicto, concurring in an illegal act, it does not always follow that they stand in pari delicto; for there may be, and often are, very different degrees in their guilt.” Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner, 472 U.S. 299, 306-07 , 105 S.Ct. 2622 , 86 L.Ed.2d 215 (1985) (footnotes and citation omitted) (alteration in original); see Kirkpatrick v. Parker, 136 Fla 2013In its classic formulation, the in pari delicto defense was narrowly limited to situations where the plaintiff truly bore at least substantially equal responsibility for his injury, because “in cases where both parties are in delicto, concurring in an illegal act, it does not always follow that they stand in pari delicto; for there may be, and often are, very different degrees in their guilt.” Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner, 472 U.S. 299, 306-07 , 105 S.Ct. 2622 , 86 L.Ed.2d 215 (1985) (footnotes and citation omitted) (alteration in original); see Kirkpatrick v. Parker, 136 Fla | 1 | 1 |
Florida Dept. of Transp. v. Julianogreen1 sentence2013Id. (quoting Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101, 105 (Fla.2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc.green2 sentences2013Id. (quoting Fla. Dep’t of Transp. v. Juliano, 801 So.2d 101, 105 (Fla.2001)). 2013The Supreme Court explained the doctrine of res judicata in Engle v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 945 So.2d 1246, 1259 (Fla.2006): A judgment on the merits rendered in a former suit between the same parties or their privies, upon the same cause of action, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim, but as to every other matter which might with propriety have been litigated and determined in that action. | 1 | 1 |
State, in Interest of Huntergreen2 sentences2012Under this principle, “when the legislature approves unconstitutional statutory language and simultaneously repeals its predecessor, then the judicial act of striking the new statutory language automatically revives the predecessor unless it, too, would be unconstitutional.” Id. 2012II, sec. 3, Fla. Const. The State relies on B.H. v. State, 645 So.2d 987, 995 (Fla.1994), in which the supreme court explained the principle of statutory revival, which applies “where the loss of the invalid statutory language will result in a ‘hiatus’ in the law that would be intolerable to society.” Id. (citing State in re Hunter, 387 So.2d 1086, 1090 (La.1980)). | 1 | 1 |
B.H. v. Stategreen2 sentences2012II, sec. 3, Fla. Const. The State relies on B.H. v. State, 645 So.2d 987, 995 (Fla.1994), in which the supreme court explained the principle of statutory revival, which applies “where the loss of the invalid statutory language will result in a ‘hiatus’ in the law that would be intolerable to society.” Id. (citing State in re Hunter, 387 So.2d 1086, 1090 (La.1980)). 2012II, sec. 3, Fla. Const. The State relies on B.H. v. State, 645 So.2d 987, 995 (Fla.1994), in which the supreme court explained the principle of statutory revival, which applies “where the loss of the invalid statutory language will result in a ‘hiatus’ in the law that would be intolerable to society.” Id. (citing State in re Hunter, 387 So.2d 1086, 1090 (La.1980)). | 1 | 1 |
Gaynon v. Statumred2 sentences1999On this basis it granted the motion for summary judgment. *116 The supreme court explained the rule against splitting causes of action in Gaynon v. Statum, 151 Fla. 793, 796 , 10 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla.1942), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Goldman v. Kent Cleaners & Laundry, Inc., 110 So.2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959), as follows: [w]e recognize the rule against the splitting of causes of action and that as a general rule the law mandatorily requires that all damages sustained or accruing to one as a result of a single wrongful act must be claimed and recovered in one action or not 1999On this basis it granted the motion for summary judgment. *116 The supreme court explained the rule against splitting causes of action in Gaynon v. Statum, 151 Fla. 793, 796 , 10 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla.1942), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Goldman v. Kent Cleaners & Laundry, Inc., 110 So.2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959), as follows: [w]e recognize the rule against the splitting of causes of action and that as a general rule the law mandatorily requires that all damages sustained or accruing to one as a result of a single wrongful act must be claimed and recovered in one action or not | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner
green
2 sentences2013In its classic formulation, the in pari delicto defense was narrowly limited to situations where the plaintiff truly bore at least substantially equal responsibility for his injury, because “in cases where both parties are in delicto, concurring in an illegal act, it does not always follow that they stand in pari delicto; for there may be, and often are, very different degrees in their guilt.” Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner, 472 U.S. 299, 306-07 , 105 S.Ct. 2622 , 86 L.Ed.2d 215 (1985) (footnotes and citation omitted) (alteration in original); see Kirkpatrick v. Parker, 136 Fla 2013In its classic formulation, the in pari delicto defense was narrowly limited to situations where the plaintiff truly bore at least substantially equal responsibility for his injury, because “in cases where both parties are in delicto, concurring in an illegal act, it does not always follow that they stand in pari delicto; for there may be, and often are, very different degrees in their guilt.” Bateman Eichler, Hill Richards, Inc. v. Berner, 472 U.S. 299, 306-07 , 105 S.Ct. 2622 , 86 L.Ed.2d 215 (1985) (footnotes and citation omitted) (alteration in original); see Kirkpatrick v. Parker, 136 Fla | 1 | 2013–2013 |
HBA MANAGEMENT v. Estate of Schwartz
green
1 sentence2011These categories clearly identify certain persons whose statements or actions, by virtue of their present status as employees or agents, may directly affect their employer’s legal position. 693 So.2d at 545 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Harrell v. State
green
1 sentence2011The supreme court explained that rule 3.170(f) limits the opportunity for a defendant to withdraw his plea to the period of time before sentencing, noting that motions to withdraw plea after sentencing are clearly governed by “rule 3.170(Z), which allows withdrawal of a plea only for the specific reasons listed in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(b).” Harrell, 894 So.2d at 939 n. 2. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence2005In Brown v. State, 376 So.2d 382 (Fla.1979), the supreme court explained the requirement that the issue be dispositive: The practice of allowing an appeal after a plea of nolo contendere [or guilty] is grounded upon the belief that "it expedites resolution of the controversy and narrows the issues to be resolved." These purposes are poorly served and, indeed, thwarted when a defendant is permitted to appeal nondispositive pretrial rulings. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Goldman v. Kent Cleaners & Laundry, Inc.
green
1 sentence1999On this basis it granted the motion for summary judgment. *116 The supreme court explained the rule against splitting causes of action in Gaynon v. Statum, 151 Fla. 793, 796 , 10 So.2d 432, 433 (Fla.1942), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Goldman v. Kent Cleaners & Laundry, Inc., 110 So.2d 50 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959), as follows: [w]e recognize the rule against the splitting of causes of action and that as a general rule the law mandatorily requires that all damages sustained or accruing to one as a result of a single wrongful act must be claimed and recovered in one action or not | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hickman v. Taylor
green
2 sentences1994Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). 1994Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc.
green
1 sentence1991In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 358 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 1978), the supreme court explained the doctrine and outlined what elements must be demonstrated to warrant the giving of the instruction on res ipsa loquitur. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.