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.
8 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
North Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Fornesgreen2 sentences2025Dist. v. Fornes, 476 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 1985) (“[I]n the absence of a constitutional challenge, a taxpayer may bring suit only upon a showing of special injury which is distinct from that suffered by other taxpayers in the taxing district.” (quotation omitted)); Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832, 837 (Fla. 1972) (“The interest may be one shared in common with a number of other members of the community as where an entire neighborhood is affected, but not every resident and property owner of a municipality can, as a general rule, claim such an 6 interest. 2025Dist. v. Fornes, 476 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 1985) (“[I]n the absence of a constitutional challenge, a taxpayer may bring suit only upon a showing of special injury which is distinct from that suffered by other taxpayers in the taxing district.” (quotation omitted)); Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832, 837 (Fla. 1972) (“The interest may be one shared in common with a number of other members of the community as where an entire neighborhood is affected, but not every resident and property owner of a municipality can, as a general rule, claim such an 6 interest. | 4 | 4 |
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF STATE v. Markhamgreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., North Broward Hospital Dist. v. Fornes, 476 So.2d 154, 156 (Fla.1985) (finding no reason to modify the special injury requirement for taxpayer suits); Dep’t of Revenue v. Markham, 396 So.2d 1120, 1121 (Fla.1981) (reiterating that in the absence of a constitutional challenge a taxpayer must show a special injury distinct from that suffered by other taxpayers to have standing); U.S. Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc., 303 So.2d 9, 13 (Fla.1974) (stating that although it had created a limited exception to the Rick-man rule in Home “this Court did not intend to abrogate in any way the s 1999In North Broward Hospital District v. Fornes, 476 So.2d 154, 155 (Fla.1985) (quoting Department of Revenue v. Markham, 396 So.2d 1120, 1121 (Fla.1981)), the supreme court reiterated the requirements of standing, commenting that [i]t has long been the rule in Florida that, in the absence of a constitutional challenge, a taxpayer may bring suit only upon a showing of special injury which is distinct from that suffered by other taxpayers in the taxing district. | 2 | 4 |
United States Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc.green2 sentences2016See, e.g., North Broward Hospital Dist. v. Fornes, 476 So.2d 154, 156 (Fla.1985) (finding no reason to modify the special injury requirement for taxpayer suits); Dep’t of Revenue v. Markham, 396 So.2d 1120, 1121 (Fla.1981) (reiterating that in the absence of a constitutional challenge a taxpayer must show a special injury distinct from that suffered by other taxpayers to have standing); U.S. Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc., 303 So.2d 9, 13 (Fla.1974) (stating that although it had created a limited exception to the Rick-man rule in Home “this Court did not intend to abrogate in any way the s 1985See United States Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc., 303 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1974). | 2 | 2 |
Rickman v. Whitehurstgreen2 sentences2015Doherty & Co. v. Joachim, 146 Fla. 50 , 200 So. 238, 240 (1941) (stating that a mere increase in taxes does not confer standing on a taxpayer seeking to challenge a government expenditure); Rickman v. Whitehurst, 73 Fla. 152 , 74 So. 205, 207 (1917) (requiring that taxpayer suffer special injury before standing is conveyed). 2015Doherty & Co. v. Joachim, 146 Fla. 50 , 200 So. 238, 240 (1941) (stating that a mere increase in taxes does not confer standing on a taxpayer seeking to challenge a government expenditure); Rickman v. Whitehurst, 73 Fla. 152 , 74 So. 205, 207 (1917) (requiring that taxpayer suffer special injury before standing is conveyed). | 1 | 2 |
Renard v. Dade Countygreen2 sentences2025Dist. v. Fornes, 476 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 1985) (“[I]n the absence of a constitutional challenge, a taxpayer may bring suit only upon a showing of special injury which is distinct from that suffered by other taxpayers in the taxing district.” (quotation omitted)); Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832, 837 (Fla. 1972) (“The interest may be one shared in common with a number of other members of the community as where an entire neighborhood is affected, but not every resident and property owner of a municipality can, as a general rule, claim such an 6 interest. 2025Dist. v. Fornes, 476 So. 2d 154, 155 (Fla. 1985) (“[I]n the absence of a constitutional challenge, a taxpayer may bring suit only upon a showing of special injury which is distinct from that suffered by other taxpayers in the taxing district.” (quotation omitted)); Renard v. Dade County, 261 So. 2d 832, 837 (Fla. 1972) (“The interest may be one shared in common with a number of other members of the community as where an entire neighborhood is affected, but not every resident and property owner of a municipality can, as a general rule, claim such an 6 interest. | 1 | 1 |
Henry L. Doherty Co., Inc. v. Joachimgreen2 sentences2015Doherty & Co. v. Joachim, 146 Fla. 50 , 200 So. 238, 240 (1941) (stating that a mere increase in taxes does not confer standing on a taxpayer seeking to challenge a government expenditure); Rickman v. Whitehurst, 73 Fla. 152 , 74 So. 205, 207 (1917) (requiring that taxpayer suffer special injury before standing is conveyed). 2015Doherty & Co. v. Joachim, 146 Fla. 50 , 200 So. 238, 240 (1941) (stating that a mere increase in taxes does not confer standing on a taxpayer seeking to challenge a government expenditure); Rickman v. Whitehurst, 73 Fla. 152 , 74 So. 205, 207 (1917) (requiring that taxpayer suffer special injury before standing is conveyed). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Arizona v. Evans
green
2 sentences2008While there is no doubt that application of the exclusionary rule to section 901.211 would deter violations of this statute indeed, this is the goal of the exclusionary rule, see Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 14 , 115 S.Ct. 1185 , 131 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995) (noting that the exclusionary rule was historically designed as a means of deterring police misconduct) the benefits of the exclusionary rule are totally irrelevant when a court determines whether the rule applies to a specific state statute in the absence of a constitutional violation. 2008While there is no doubt that application of the exclusionary rule to section 901.211 would deter violations of this statute indeed, this is the goal of the exclusionary rule, see Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 14 , 115 S.Ct. 1185 , 131 L.Ed.2d 34 (1995) (noting that the exclusionary rule was historically designed as a means of deterring police misconduct) the benefits of the exclusionary rule are totally irrelevant when a court determines whether the rule applies to a specific state statute in the absence of a constitutional violation. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Department of Administration v. Horne
green
1 sentence1981Department of Administration v. Horne, 269 So.2d 659 (Fla. 1972); Rickman v. Whitehurst, 73 Fla. 152 , 74 So. 205 (1917). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.