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 1981–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggsgreen2 sentences2014Haines City Cmty Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995); Educ. 2014Haines City Cmty Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 530 (Fla. 1995); Educ. | 3 | 3 |
Festa v. Teleflex, Inc.green2 sentences1998Judge Ervin explained the difference between occupational disease and repetitive trauma or exposure in Lake v. Irwin Yacht & Marine Corp., 398 So.2d 902, 903-04 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981): As to exposure, in Festa v. Teleflex, [ 382 So.2d 122, 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)1 we established a three pronged test: (1) The claimant must have had a prolonged exposure; (2) a causal relationship must be established between the exposure and the injury or aggravation; and (3) claimant must establish that he or she has been subject to a hazard greater than that to which the general public is exposed. 1986As to exposure, in Festa v. Teleflex, Inc., 382 So.2d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980), this court established the following three pronged test: (1) the claimant must have had a prolonged exposure; (2) a causal relationship must be established between the exposure and the injury or aggravation; and (3) the claimant must establish that he or she has been subject to a hazard greater than that to which the general public is exposed. | 1 | 3 |
Lake v. Irwin Yacht & Marine Corp.green1 sentence1998Judge Ervin explained the difference between occupational disease and repetitive trauma or exposure in Lake v. Irwin Yacht & Marine Corp., 398 So.2d 902, 903-04 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981): As to exposure, in Festa v. Teleflex, [ 382 So.2d 122, 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)1 we established a three pronged test: (1) The claimant must have had a prolonged exposure; (2) a causal relationship must be established between the exposure and the injury or aggravation; and (3) claimant must establish that he or she has been subject to a hazard greater than that to which the general public is exposed. | 1 | 1 |
Food MacHinery Corp. v. Shookgreen1 sentence1986Accord, Food Machinery Corp. v. Shook, 425 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Broward Indus. Plating, Inc. v. Weiby
green
2 sentences1998We have also recently announced in Broward Industrial Plating, Inc. v. Weiby, 394 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), a four-factor test that must be proven by the claimant before he or she can recover for an occupational disease: (1) the disease must be actually caused by employment conditions that are characteristic of and peculiar to a particular occupation; (2) the disease must be actually contracted during employment in the particular occupation; (3) the occupation must present a particular hazard of the disease occurring so as to distinguish that occupation from usual occupations, or the inc 1981We have also recently announced in Broward Industrial Plating, Inc. v. Weiby, 394 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), a four-factor test that must be proven by the claimant before he or she can recover for an occupational disease: (1) the disease must be actually caused by employment conditions that are characteristic of and peculiar to a particular occupation; (2) the disease must be actually contracted during employment in the particular occupation; (3) the occupation must present a particular hazard of the disease occurring so as to distinguish that occupation from usual occupations, or the inc | 2 | 1981–1998 |
Broward County v. GBV Intern., Ltd.
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 846 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co.
green
2 sentences2004Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 , 90 L.Ed. 1244 (1946) (To prove the existence of an investment contract there is a three pronged test which requires: 1) an investment of money; 2) a common enterprise; and 3) expectations of profits to be derived solely from the efforts of another.). 2004Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 , 66 S.Ct. 1100 , 90 L.Ed. 1244 (1946) (To prove the existence of an investment contract there is a three pronged test which requires: 1) an investment of money; 2) a common enterprise; and 3) expectations of profits to be derived solely from the efforts of another.). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Ward v. State
green
1 sentence1997Id. at 1083 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.