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 3 courts 1987–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
South Motor Co. v. Accountable Const. Co.green1 sentence2023For an account stated claim to exist, “there must be an agreement that a certain balance is correct and due, and an express or implicit promise to pay that balance.” S. Motor Co. of Dade Cnty. v. Accountable Const. Co., 707 So. 2d 909, 912 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). | 1 | 1 |
KATRINA BUSHNELL v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOC., L L Cgreen2 sentences2020See Bushnell, 255 So. 3d at 477-78 . 2020In both Ham and Bushnell, the district court was presented with a certified question of great public importance that framed the issue as whether an account stated claim is an action “to enforce a contract.” Ham, 260 So. 3d at 453 - 54; Bushnell, 255 So. 3d at 474 . | 1 | 1 |
Farley v. Chase Bank, U.S.A., N.A.green2 sentences2020The district court acknowledged that Portfolio chose to file an account stated claim, which “is based on ‘the agreement of the parties to pay the amount due upon the accounting, and not any written instrument.’ ” Id. at 454 (quoting Farley v. Chase Bank, U.S.A., 37 So. 3d 936, 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). 2020Ham, 260 So. 3d at 456 ; see also Farley, 37 So. 3d at 937 (explaining that prevailing on an account stated claim requires proof of “an agreement between persons who have had previous transactions, fixing the amount due in respect of such transactions, and promising payment” (emphasis added) (quoting Martyn v. Amold, 18 So. 791 , 793 (Fla. 1895))). | 1 | 1 |
Nants v. Federal Deposit Insurancegreen1 sentence1998An account stated claim is "`an agreement between persons who have had previous transactions, fixing the amount due in respect to such transactions and promising payment.'" Nants v. F.D.I.C., 864 F.Supp. 1211, 1219 (S.D.Fla.1994) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand and Associates
green
1 sentence2022As we have no transcript of the hearing, we are required to 2 In another footnote in Beal Bank, the court noted that it did not address another account, titled the Merrill Lynch Account, because the wife’s name was added later to the account. 780 So. 2d at 49 n.2. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Laura Foxhall v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
neutral
2 sentences2020The district court acknowledged that Portfolio chose to file an account stated claim, which “is based on ‘the agreement of the parties to pay the amount due upon the accounting, and not any written instrument.’ ” Id. at 454 (quoting Farley v. Chase Bank, U.S.A., 37 So. 3d 936, 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)). 2020In both Ham and Bushnell, the district court was presented with a certified question of great public importance that framed the issue as whether an account stated claim is an action “to enforce a contract.” Ham, 260 So. 3d at 453 - 54; Bushnell, 255 So. 3d at 474 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Tylinski v. Klein Automotive, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018The facts of this case are more analogous to the facts in Tylinski v. Klein Automotive, Inc., 90 So. 3d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Fogarty
green
1 sentence1991RAB/tjw 1 26 U.S.C. § 3102 (a). 2 But see , 26 U.S.C. § 3121 (u)(2), stating that for purposes of the taxes imposed by ss. 3101(b) and 3111(b) (hospital insurance), subsection (b) (defining "employment") shall be applied without regard to paragraph (7) exempting states from the definition except as provided in s. 3121(u)(2)(B) and (C). 3 And see , s. 650.05 , F.S., relating to plans for coverage of employees of political subdivisions. 4 And see , Rule 3A-31.227 , F.A.C., authorizing the Comptroller's Office to deduct and remit the federal withholding tax to the federal government in the employ | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Otte v. United States
green
1 sentence1991RAB/tjw 1 26 U.S.C. § 3102 (a). 2 But see , 26 U.S.C. § 3121 (u)(2), stating that for purposes of the taxes imposed by ss. 3101(b) and 3111(b) (hospital insurance), subsection (b) (defining "employment") shall be applied without regard to paragraph (7) exempting states from the definition except as provided in s. 3121(u)(2)(B) and (C). 3 And see , s. 650.05 , F.S., relating to plans for coverage of employees of political subdivisions. 4 And see , Rule 3A-31.227 , F.A.C., authorizing the Comptroller's Office to deduct and remit the federal withholding tax to the federal government in the employ | 1 | 1991–1991 |
James R. Cash v. Ellis Campbell, Jr., District Director of Internal Revenue
green
1 sentence1991RAB/tjw 1 26 U.S.C. § 3102 (a). 2 But see , 26 U.S.C. § 3121 (u)(2), stating that for purposes of the taxes imposed by ss. 3101(b) and 3111(b) (hospital insurance), subsection (b) (defining "employment") shall be applied without regard to paragraph (7) exempting states from the definition except as provided in s. 3121(u)(2)(B) and (C). 3 And see , s. 650.05 , F.S., relating to plans for coverage of employees of political subdivisions. 4 And see , Rule 3A-31.227 , F.A.C., authorizing the Comptroller's Office to deduct and remit the federal withholding tax to the federal government in the employ | 1 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. T. E. Hill, Jr. And Larry Moore, T. E. Hill, Jr. And Larry Moore v. United States
green
1 sentence1991RAB/tjw 1 26 U.S.C. § 3102 (a). 2 But see , 26 U.S.C. § 3121 (u)(2), stating that for purposes of the taxes imposed by ss. 3101(b) and 3111(b) (hospital insurance), subsection (b) (defining "employment") shall be applied without regard to paragraph (7) exempting states from the definition except as provided in s. 3121(u)(2)(B) and (C). 3 And see , s. 650.05 , F.S., relating to plans for coverage of employees of political subdivisions. 4 And see , Rule 3A-31.227 , F.A.C., authorizing the Comptroller's Office to deduct and remit the federal withholding tax to the federal government in the employ | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Dudas v. Dade County
green
1 sentence1990As to the account stated claim, the complaint sufficiently alleged “an agreement between the parties that -a certain balance is correct and due and an express or implicit promise to pay this balance.” Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. “Corniche Express”, 400 So.2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Dudas v. Dade County, 385 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
MERRILL-STEVENS DRY DOCK COMPANY v. Corniche Express
green
1 sentence1990As to the account stated claim, the complaint sufficiently alleged “an agreement between the parties that -a certain balance is correct and due and an express or implicit promise to pay this balance.” Merrill-Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. “Corniche Express”, 400 So.2d 1286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Dudas v. Dade County, 385 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Clements v. Plummer
green
1 sentence1987Clements v. Plummer, 250 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.