Trustees claim in Florida

9 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2024 1 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.

Followed or applied (13)

Case	Followed	Cited
STATE, BD. OF TRUSTEES OF INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST FUND v. Day Cruise Assoc., Inc.green fladistctapp · 2001 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See Day Cruise, 794 So.2d at 703-04 (holding Trustees’ rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority “[i]n the absence of a specific power or duty enabling or requiring” the rule, notwithstanding statutes “describpng] the Trustees’ functions and goals in broad terms”); S.W. 2005See Day Cruise, 794 So.2d at 703-04 (holding Trustees' rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority "[i]n the absence of a specific power or duty enabling or requiring" the rule, notwithstanding statutes "describ[ing] the Trustees' functions and goals in broad terms"); S.W.	2	2
Odom v. Deltona Corp.green fla · 1977 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1981–1982 2 sentences 1982If the state has conveyed property rights which it now needs, these can be reacquired through eminent domain; otherwise, legal estoppel is applicable and bars the Trustees’ claim of ownership, subject to rights specifically reserved in such conveyances. 341 So.2d at 989 (emphasis supplied). (e) In Odom v. Deltona Corp., supra, the Supreme Court refused to allow the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund to dispute the declaration in their deed that the land was swamp and overflowed land which was capable of being conveyed. 1982If the state has conveyed property rights which it now needs, these can be reacquired through eminent domain; otherwise, legal estoppel is applicable and bars the Trustees’ claim of ownership, subject to rights specifically reserved in such conveyances. 341 So.2d at 989 (emphasis supplied). (e) In Odom v. Deltona Corp., supra, the Supreme Court refused to allow the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund to dispute the declaration in their deed that the land was swamp and overflowed land which was capable of being conveyed.	2	2
Tilden v. Smithgreen fla · 1927 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 2 sentences 1986The ordinary high water line (OHWL) is described as "the point up to which the presence and action of the water is so continuous as to destroy the value of the land for agricultural purposes by preventing the growth of vegetation." Tilden v. Smith, 94 Fla. 502 , 113 So. 708, 712 (1927). 1986The ordinary high water line (OHWL) is described as "the point up to which the presence and action of the water is so continuous as to destroy the value of the land for agricultural purposes by preventing the growth of vegetation." Tilden v. Smith, 94 Fla. 502 , 113 So. 708, 712 (1927).	1	1
STATE, ETC. v. Contemporary Land Sales, Inc.green fladistctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986 1 sentence 1986See State v. Contemporary Land Sales, Inc., 400 So.2d 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).	1	1
Ullendorff v. Browngreen fla · 1945 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 1 sentence 1984In Mabie , as well as in the various other cases cited by the Trustees where the rule of priority was employed, Benedict v. Foster, 300 So.2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1974), Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534, 535-36 (Fla. 1952), Ullendorff v. Brown 156 Fla. 655 , 24 So.2d 37, 39-40 (1945), Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753 , 15 So.2d 842 (1943), DiProspero v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So.2d 177, 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Gehl, 358 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), Hogan v. Millican, 209 So.2d 716, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), and Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925	1	1
Hunt v. Ganawaygreen fladistctapp · 1965 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 1 sentence 1984See also Hunt v. Ganaway, 180 So.2d 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965), disapproved on other grounds, Mabie.	1	1
Taylor v. Coopergreen fla · 1952 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 1 sentence 1984In Mabie , as well as in the various other cases cited by the Trustees where the rule of priority was employed, Benedict v. Foster, 300 So.2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1974), Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534, 535-36 (Fla. 1952), Ullendorff v. Brown 156 Fla. 655 , 24 So.2d 37, 39-40 (1945), Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753 , 15 So.2d 842 (1943), DiProspero v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So.2d 177, 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Gehl, 358 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), Hogan v. Millican, 209 So.2d 716, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), and Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925	1	1
Royal Globe Ins. Co. v. Gehlgreen fladistctapp · 1978 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 1 sentence 1984In Mabie , as well as in the various other cases cited by the Trustees where the rule of priority was employed, Benedict v. Foster, 300 So.2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1974), Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534, 535-36 (Fla. 1952), Ullendorff v. Brown 156 Fla. 655 , 24 So.2d 37, 39-40 (1945), Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753 , 15 So.2d 842 (1943), DiProspero v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So.2d 177, 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Gehl, 358 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), Hogan v. Millican, 209 So.2d 716, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), and Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925	1	1
Hogan v. Millicangreen fladistctapp · 1968 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 1 sentence 1984In Mabie , as well as in the various other cases cited by the Trustees where the rule of priority was employed, Benedict v. Foster, 300 So.2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1974), Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534, 535-36 (Fla. 1952), Ullendorff v. Brown 156 Fla. 655 , 24 So.2d 37, 39-40 (1945), Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753 , 15 So.2d 842 (1943), DiProspero v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So.2d 177, 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Gehl, 358 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), Hogan v. Millican, 209 So.2d 716, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), and Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925	1	1
Benedict v. Fostergreen fla · 1974 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 1 sentence 1984In Mabie , as well as in the various other cases cited by the Trustees where the rule of priority was employed, Benedict v. Foster, 300 So.2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1974), Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534, 535-36 (Fla. 1952), Ullendorff v. Brown 156 Fla. 655 , 24 So.2d 37, 39-40 (1945), Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753 , 15 So.2d 842 (1943), DiProspero v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So.2d 177, 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Gehl, 358 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), Hogan v. Millican, 209 So.2d 716, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), and Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925	1	1
DiProspero v. Shelby Mutual Insurancegreen fladistctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 1 sentence 1984In Mabie , as well as in the various other cases cited by the Trustees where the rule of priority was employed, Benedict v. Foster, 300 So.2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1974), Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534, 535-36 (Fla. 1952), Ullendorff v. Brown 156 Fla. 655 , 24 So.2d 37, 39-40 (1945), Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753 , 15 So.2d 842 (1943), DiProspero v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So.2d 177, 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Gehl, 358 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), Hogan v. Millican, 209 So.2d 716, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), and Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925	1	1
Modrall v. Sawyergreen fla · 1974 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 1 sentence 1981See also, Sawyer v. Modrall, 286 So.2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert. denied, 297 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1974).	1	1
Sawyer v. Modrallgreen fladistctapp · 1973 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981 1 sentence 1981See also, Sawyer v. Modrall, 286 So.2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973), cert. denied, 297 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1974).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Joseph R. Biden, I I I, the Attorney General etc. v. John S. Lord, Herbert H. Peyton green fladistctapp · 2014 1 sentence 2024As support for that very limited application, Appellees asserted that the First District declined to follow Gebelein in a more recent decision, Biden v. Lord, 147 So. 3d 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014), in which the DAG’s attempt to intervene was rejected by the trial court and upheld on appeal. 7 The Trustees’ motion for summary judgment also urged the trial court to interpret the meaning of Article F(3) of the Agreement, the 50% Requirement, in a manner perhaps more favorable to the Trustees.	1	2024–2024
Martin v. Busch green fla · 1927 2 sentences 1987The complaint against the trustees alleged only that the deed from the trustees to Henderson did encompass the land in controversy and that although the trustees claim some right in this land, the plaintiffs did not know the nature of the claim, but "whatever the basis of said claim, the same is without foundation in law." Id. at 543 , 112 So. at 277 . 1987The complaint against the trustees alleged only that the deed from the trustees to Henderson did encompass the land in controversy and that although the trustees claim some right in this land, the plaintiffs did not know the nature of the claim, but "whatever the basis of said claim, the same is without foundation in law." Id. at 543 , 112 So. at 277 .	1	1987–1987
BD. OF T. OF INT. IMP. TRUST F. v. Mobil Oil green fladistctapp · 1984 1 sentence 1986In Mobil Oil, the district court held that the Polk County Circuit Court did not err in denying petitioner Trustees' motion in the alternative because the Leon County Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of respondent Mobil's reply counterclaim for the reason that the counterclaim is in rem in nature and local to Polk County Circuit Court. 455 So.2d at 416 .	1	1986–1986
State v. Childre green fla · 1945 1 sentence 1984In Mabie , as well as in the various other cases cited by the Trustees where the rule of priority was employed, Benedict v. Foster, 300 So.2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1974), Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534, 535-36 (Fla. 1952), Ullendorff v. Brown 156 Fla. 655 , 24 So.2d 37, 39-40 (1945), Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753 , 15 So.2d 842 (1943), DiProspero v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So.2d 177, 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Gehl, 358 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), Hogan v. Millican, 209 So.2d 716, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), and Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925	1	1984–1984
Morgan v. State neutral fla · 1943 1 sentence 1984In Mabie , as well as in the various other cases cited by the Trustees where the rule of priority was employed, Benedict v. Foster, 300 So.2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1974), Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534, 535-36 (Fla. 1952), Ullendorff v. Brown 156 Fla. 655 , 24 So.2d 37, 39-40 (1945), Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753 , 15 So.2d 842 (1943), DiProspero v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So.2d 177, 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Gehl, 358 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), Hogan v. Millican, 209 So.2d 716, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), and Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925	1	1984–1984
Martinez v. Martinez green fla · 1943 1 sentence 1984In Mabie , as well as in the various other cases cited by the Trustees where the rule of priority was employed, Benedict v. Foster, 300 So.2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1974), Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534, 535-36 (Fla. 1952), Ullendorff v. Brown 156 Fla. 655 , 24 So.2d 37, 39-40 (1945), Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753 , 15 So.2d 842 (1943), DiProspero v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So.2d 177, 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Gehl, 358 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), Hogan v. Millican, 209 So.2d 716, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), and Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925	1	1984–1984
Crosley Corporation v. Hazeltine Corporation green ca3 · 1941 1 sentence 1984In Mabie , as well as in the various other cases cited by the Trustees where the rule of priority was employed, Benedict v. Foster, 300 So.2d 8, 10 (Fla. 1974), Taylor v. Cooper, 60 So.2d 534, 535-36 (Fla. 1952), Ullendorff v. Brown 156 Fla. 655 , 24 So.2d 37, 39-40 (1945), Martinez v. Martinez, 153 Fla. 753 , 15 So.2d 842 (1943), DiProspero v. Shelby Mutual Insurance Co., 400 So.2d 177, 179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), Royal Globe Insurance Co. v. Gehl, 358 So.2d 228, 229 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), Hogan v. Millican, 209 So.2d 716, 718 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968), and Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp., 122 F.2d 925	1	1984–1984
Bob R. Starnes, Trustee v. Marcon Investment Group, a Florida Corporation, Tropical Isle, Inc., a Florida Corporation green ca5 · 1978 1 sentence 1981Group, 571 F.2d 1369 (5th Cir. 1978), the court correctly interpreted Odom as having held that the Act extinguished the Trustees’ claim of title to sovereignty lands.	1	1981–1981

Where else courts name it

CA 14 (1930–2025) OH 11 (1904–2018) NY 10 (1886–2025) FL 9 (1981–2024) PA 8 (1956–2024) TX 7 (1961–2021) MA 6 (1942–2010) MO 6 (1968–2023) ME 3 (1995–2017) MD 3 (1991–2011) IL 3 (1963–1996) IN 3 (1995–2004) ID 3 (1977–2021) HI 2 (2007–2007) LA 2 (1971–1985) WA 2 (1976–2013) WV 2 (1900–1999)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check