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 1963–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. DHRSgreen2 sentences2017After addressing the two categories of the public, records exception, the court explained that “[i]n adopting this exception, Florida specifically excluded a third type of record that is admissible under the corresponding federal rule: that is, a record setting forth factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law.” 698 So.2d at 1201 (internal quotes and citation omitted). 2010“In adopting this exception,” our High Court has explained, “Florida specifically excluded a third type of record that is admissible under the corresponding federal rule: that is, ‘a record setting forth factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to an authority granted by law.’ ” Lee, 698 So.2d at 1201 . | 2 | 3 |
Vaughan v. Petroleum Conversion Corp.green1 sentence1963See also Moore's Federal Practice, vol. 7, § 60.27, pp. 295, 296. [2] See Vaughn v. Petroleum Conversion Corp., D.C., 120 F. Supp. 175, 178 ; Moore's Federal Practice, vol. 7, §§ 60.28(2), 60.30(1), pp. 320, 334. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(J)—Time Limit for Service
green
1 sentence2000In following the amendment of the corresponding federal rule, [4] we observed that "[t]he [federal] rule as amended grants a court broad discretion to extend the time for service even when good cause has not been shown ... [b]ut ... requires a mandatory extension where good cause for the failure to serve is shown." Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
In re City of Philadelphia Litigation
green
1 sentence1990In Re: City of Philadelphia Litigation, 123 F.R.D. 515 (E.D. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Orlando Valdez v. United States
green
1 sentence1982Errors and irregularities in the manner in which the testimony is transcribed or the deposition is prepared, signed, certified or otherwise dealt with by the officer under Rules 1.310 and 1.320 are waived unless a motion to suppress the deposition or some part of it is made with reasonable promptness after the defect is, or with due diligence might have been, discovered. [4] See Valdez v. United States, 326 F.2d 598 (9th Cir.1963). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Brooker v. Smith
green
1 sentence1964Therefore, since the point in controversy here has not been ruled on by our Supreme Court, we may look to decisions by the various federal courts for assistance.” Brooker v. Smith, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 790, 795 . . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Klapprott v. United States
green
2 sentences1963NOTES [1] We find support for this conclusion in the case of Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 , 69 S.Ct. 384 , 93 L.Ed. 266 , wherein the Supreme Court of the United States was called upon to construe the corresponding federal rule, Rule 60, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which is substantially the same as, and was used as a guide in drafting, the Florida rule. 1963NOTES [1] We find support for this conclusion in the case of Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 , 69 S.Ct. 384 , 93 L.Ed. 266 , wherein the Supreme Court of the United States was called upon to construe the corresponding federal rule, Rule 60, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which is substantially the same as, and was used as a guide in drafting, the Florida rule. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.