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 1 courts 1982–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Aldana v. Colonial Palms Plaza, Ltd.green1 sentence2016Id.; see also Aldana v. Colonial Palms Plaza, Ltd., 591 So.2d 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding that anti-assignment clause did not prevent assignment of right to receive - payments due); Charles L. | 1 | 1 |
Litvin v. ST. LUCIE CTY. SHERIFF'S DEPT.green2 sentences1993Lucie County Sheriff's Department, supra , we held that a procedural amendment to section 440.15(3)(b)2, Florida Statutes, imposing a 14-day time limit for filing wage loss forms and job search reports, applied prospectively to wage loss periods occurring after the effective date of the amendment. "[W]hile prospective effect might preclude application of the amendment to a prior occurrence or an accrued claim, a wage loss claim does not arise upon the occurrence of the accident and injury. 1993Instead, the claim arises upon the occurrence of each period of wage loss... ." Id. at 1355-56 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Rosecrans v. William S. Lozier, Inc.green1 sentence1983Rosecrans v. William S. Lozier, Inc., 142 F.2d 118, 124 (8th Cir.1944) ("The prohibition of the contract against assignment is against an assignment of the rights and privileges under the contract. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co.
green
2 sentences1990Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co., 490 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 1986)." (e.s.) However, Proctor is inapposite to the issue presented in this case. 1986Daniel v. Holmes Lumber Co., 490 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 1986). | 2 | 1986–1990 |
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Sierra
green
1 sentence1999Co. v. Sierra, 705 So.2d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), that the "right” to appraisal does not follow the assignment of an accrued claim. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Proctor v. Swing Set Day Care Center
neutral
1 sentence1990Proctor v. Swing Set Day Care Center, 498 So.2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), concludes that "[u]nder the language of section 440.19(2)(a), as most recently construed, the voluntary payment of compensation or remedial treatment revives the two year limitation period, even if an accrued defense existed at the time of such payment. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Cordis Corporation v. Sonics International, Inc.
green
1 sentence1983Cordis Corp. v. Sonics International, Inc., 427 So.2d 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Traders Ins. Co. v. Aachen & Munich Fire Ins. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1982The court in Traders’ rejected the insured’s argument that the cancellation agreement was binding because it released and surrendered all liability, past as well as future, and also rejected the argument that the insured party should not be entitled to avoid the release or cancellation of liability because of knowledge that a loss “might have occurred.” On the latter point, the court said: We see no reason why the intent to surrender an accrued claim, the existence of which was not known, should be imputed to the plaintiff in the absence of an express understanding to that effect; and there is | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.