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 1978–2026 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Murraygreen1 sentence2026See Miller v. Murray, 68 So. 2d 594, 596 (Fla. 1953) (“In addition to establishing the fact that an oral contract for sale was made, proof must be submitted as to the following: payment of all or part of the consideration, whether it be in money or in services; possession by the alleged vendee; and the making by the vendee of valuable and permanent improvements upon the land with the consent of the vendor—or, in the absence of improvements, the proof of such facts as would make the transaction a fraud upon the purchaser if it were not enforced.”). | 1 | 1 |
LynkUs Communications, Inc. v. WebMD Corp.green1 sentence2017See, e.g., Cohen v. Corbitt, 135 So. 3d 527, 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“Appellee cannot avoid the statute of frauds simply by couching her claim in terms of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation rather than breach of an oral contract.”); LynkUS Commc’ns, Inc. v. WebMD Corp., 965 So. 2d 1161, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“[U]nder the statute of frauds, ‘an action for damages cannot be maintained on the ground of fraud in refusing to perform the [oral] contract, even though the defendant at the time of the making of the oral contract may have had no intention of performing it.’” (quoting Canell v. | 1 | 1 |
Cohen v. Corbittgreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Cohen v. Corbitt, 135 So. 3d 527, 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“Appellee cannot avoid the statute of frauds simply by couching her claim in terms of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation rather than breach of an oral contract.”); LynkUS Commc’ns, Inc. v. WebMD Corp., 965 So. 2d 1161, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“[U]nder the statute of frauds, ‘an action for damages cannot be maintained on the ground of fraud in refusing to perform the [oral] contract, even though the defendant at the time of the making of the oral contract may have had no intention of performing it.’” (quoting Canell v. | 1 | 1 |
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Pickardgreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Cohen v. Corbitt, 135 So. 3d 527, 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“Appellee cannot avoid the statute of frauds simply by couching her claim in terms of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation rather than breach of an oral contract.”); LynkUS Commc’ns, Inc. v. WebMD Corp., 965 So. 2d 1161, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“[U]nder the statute of frauds, ‘an action for damages cannot be maintained on the ground of fraud in refusing to perform the [oral] contract, even though the defendant at the time of the making of the oral contract may have had no intention of performing it.’” (quoting Canell v. | 1 | 1 |
Canell v. Arcola Housing Corp.green1 sentence2017See, e.g., Cohen v. Corbitt, 135 So. 3d 527, 530 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“Appellee cannot avoid the statute of frauds simply by couching her claim in terms of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation rather than breach of an oral contract.”); LynkUS Commc’ns, Inc. v. WebMD Corp., 965 So. 2d 1161, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“[U]nder the statute of frauds, ‘an action for damages cannot be maintained on the ground of fraud in refusing to perform the [oral] contract, even though the defendant at the time of the making of the oral contract may have had no intention of performing it.’” (quoting Canell v. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Popegreen1 sentence1999See State v. Pope, 674 So.2d 901 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (trial court erred in not requiring compliance with rule where the defendant orally moved to dismiss and failed to file a written motion). | 1 | 1 |
Torres-Arboledo v. Stategreen1 sentence1994See Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So.2d 403 (Fla. 1988); Ferguson v. State, 537 So.2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Velazguez-Velazguez v. State, 523 So.2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bridgewater v. State
green
1 sentence1997Bridgewater v. State, 668 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Nation v. State, 668 So.2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Nation v. State
green
1 sentence1997Bridgewater v. State, 668 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Nation v. State, 668 So.2d 284 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Velazguez-Velazguez v. State
green
1 sentence1994See Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So.2d 403 (Fla. 1988); Ferguson v. State, 537 So.2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Velazguez-Velazguez v. State, 523 So.2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Ferguson v. State
green
1 sentence1994See Torres-Arboledo v. State, 524 So.2d 403 (Fla. 1988); Ferguson v. State, 537 So.2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Velazguez-Velazguez v. State, 523 So.2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Lea Industries, Inc. v. RAELYN INTERN. INC.
green
1 sentence1988Section 672.201(3), Florida Statutes (1985); Lea Industries, Inc. v. Raelyn Intern., Inc., 363 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence1988However, since Williams v. State, 500 So.d 501 (Fla.1986) has cast some doubt on prior decisions upholding departure sentences based upon plea bargains, we certify the following question: IN LIGHT OF Williams v. State, 500 So.2d 501 (Fla.1986), MAY A TRIAL JUDGE EXCEED THE RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES SENTENCE BASED UPON A LEGITIMATE AND UNCOERCED CONDITION OF A PLEA BARGAIN? | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Flagship Nat. Bank of Miami v. King
green
1 sentence1984Flagship National Bank, 418 So.2d at 278 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People Ex Rel. Jones v. . Langan
neutral
1 sentence1978Jones v. Langan, 132 App.Div. 393 , 116 N.Y.S. 718 , aff'd, 196 N.Y. 551 , 90 N.E. 1164 (1909). [4] There is no merit whatsoever in appellants' general assertion that the absence of a writing requirement violates the principle of law which requires criminal statutes to be definite. [5] We note that all of the decisions on which appellants rely were rendered over sixty years ago, except for one thirty-year-old New Jersey decision. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
People ex rel. Jones v. Langan
neutral
2 sentences1978Jones v. Langan, 132 App.Div. 393 , 116 N.Y.S. 718 , aff'd, 196 N.Y. 551 , 90 N.E. 1164 (1909). [4] There is no merit whatsoever in appellants' general assertion that the absence of a writing requirement violates the principle of law which requires criminal statutes to be definite. [5] We note that all of the decisions on which appellants rely were rendered over sixty years ago, except for one thirty-year-old New Jersey decision. 1978Jones v. Langan, 132 App.Div. 393 , 116 N.Y.S. 718 , aff'd, 196 N.Y. 551 , 90 N.E. 1164 (1909). [4] There is no merit whatsoever in appellants' general assertion that the absence of a writing requirement violates the principle of law which requires criminal statutes to be definite. [5] We note that all of the decisions on which appellants rely were rendered over sixty years ago, except for one thirty-year-old New Jersey decision. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.