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 1916–1958 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 |
|---|---|---|
Whittaker v. Eddygreen2 sentences1948See Whitaker v. Eddy, 109 Fla. 535 , 147 So. 868 . 1948See Whitaker v. Eddy, 109 Fla. 535 , 147 So. 868 . | 2 | 2 |
Waring v. Bassgreen1 sentence1925See Waring v. Bass, 76 Pla. 583, 80 South. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Demos v. Walker
green
2 sentences1958Young Co., 60 Fla. 382 , 53 So. 939 .” Demos v. Walker, 99 Fla. 302 , 126 So. 305, 307 , is a case where after the defendant set the cause down for a hearing on bilí and answer when the time for taking testimony had expired, the plaintiff moved for an order extending the time for taking testimony and also a motion for dismissal “without prejudice”. 1958Young Co., 60 Fla. 382 , 53 So. 939 .” Demos v. Walker, 99 Fla. 302 , 126 So. 305, 307 , is a case where after the defendant set the cause down for a hearing on bilí and answer when the time for taking testimony had expired, the plaintiff moved for an order extending the time for taking testimony and also a motion for dismissal “without prejudice”. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Tilghman Cypress Co. v. John R. Young Co.
neutral
1 sentence1958Young Co., 60 Fla. 382 , 53 So. 939 .” Demos v. Walker, 99 Fla. 302 , 126 So. 305, 307 , is a case where after the defendant set the cause down for a hearing on bilí and answer when the time for taking testimony had expired, the plaintiff moved for an order extending the time for taking testimony and also a motion for dismissal “without prejudice”. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Schupler v. Eastern Mortgage Company
green
1 sentence1948The last construction of this Court of the foregoing Section will be found in the case of Schupler v. Eastern Mortgage Co., 33 So. (2nd) 586, 592 , wherein it was stated: “The sufficiency of the answer as a defense may be tested by setting the cause down for a hearing on a ‘motion for decree on bill and answer’ as provided by Sec. 63.40, F.S.A., upon which hearing the allegations of the answer, according to their legal effect, will predominate and control over the allegations of the bill. | 1 | 1948–1948 |
Seaboard Oil Co. v. Donovan
green
2 sentences1940Goodyear Tire Co. v. Daniel, 72 Fla. 489, 73 So. 592 ; Seaboard Oil Co. v. Donovan, 99 Fla. 1296 , 128 So. 821 . 1940Goodyear Tire Co. v. Daniel, 72 Fla. 489, 73 So. 592 ; Seaboard Oil Co. v. Donovan, 99 Fla. 1296 , 128 So. 821 . | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Daniel
neutral
1 sentence1940Goodyear Tire Co. v. Daniel, 72 Fla. 489, 73 So. 592 ; Seaboard Oil Co. v. Donovan, 99 Fla. 1296 , 128 So. 821 . | 1 | 1940–1940 |
Hunt v. Turner
green
1 sentence1930Hunt v. Turner, 54 Fla. 654 , 45 So. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Lee v. Bradley Fertilizer Co.
green
2 sentences1916Lee v. Bradley Fertilizer Co., 44 Fla. 787 , 33 South. 1916Lee v. Bradley Fertilizer Co., 44 Fla. 787 , 33 South. | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Gary v. Mickler
neutral
1 sentence1916Gary v. Mickler, 21 Fla. 539 . | 1 | 1916–1916 |
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.