8 Florida opinions name it 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mickel v. Stategreen2 sentences2025"The trial court should examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant to decide whether the necessary elements of the defense have been placed before the jury." Stannard, 113 So. 3d at 932 (citing Mickel v. State, 929 So. 2d 1192, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). 2009In determining the appropriateness of the instruction, the trial court should “examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant to decide whether the necessary elements of the defense have been placed before the jury.” Mickel v. State, 929 So.2d 1192, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see also Mathis, 973 So.2d at 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). | 2 | 3 |
INVEGO AUTO PARTS, INC. v. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2016We think Bankers goes too far because such a standard would have required Regents to fully prove its underlying claim in a preliminary “mini trial.” • As this Court stated in Invego Auto Parts, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 34 So.3d 103, 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010): In order to invoke the remedy of specific performance, .... the • plaintiff must prove that ‘as a condition precedent to specific performance it either paid the contract sum; tendered it; was ready willing and able to do so; or was excused from so doing.’ [internal citations omitted] In the case below, the parties disagree about whether Regents ca | 1 | 1 |
Butler v. Stategreen1 sentence2014But the rule regarding instructions on affirmative defenses is that in “determining the appropriateness of [an] instruction, the trial court should ‘examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant to decide whether the necessary elements of the defense have been placed before the jury.’ ” Butler v. State, 14 So.3d 269, 271 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Mathis v. Stategreen1 sentence2009In determining the appropriateness of the instruction, the trial court should “examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant to decide whether the necessary elements of the defense have been placed before the jury.” Mickel v. State, 929 So.2d 1192, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); see also Mathis, 973 So.2d at 1157 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stannard v. State
green
1 sentence2025"The trial court should examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant to decide whether the necessary elements of the defense have been placed before the jury." Stannard, 113 So. 3d at 932 (citing Mickel v. State, 929 So. 2d 1192, 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Azar v. Lehigh Corp.
green
1 sentence1988Although Boyette may have had a cause of action for interference with a prospective business relationship regarding Fina’s alleged interference in the sale of the job-bership, see Azar v. Lehigh Corp., 364 So.2d 860 (Fla.2d DCA 1978), he failed to file such a cause of action in the instant case and he has not established the necessary elements for a violation of section two of the Sherman Act. 1 Conspiracy to monop olize under section two of the Sherman Act requires three elements: “(1) [Ejxistence of a conspiracy, (2) directed at an appreciable part of interstate commerce, and (3) undertaken | 1 | 1988–1988 |
JH v. State
green
1 sentence1984Once again, we consider and are forced to reverse an adjudication that the accused was guilty of aiding and abetting the substantive offense which was the sole charge asserted and as to which the evidence is simply insufficient to establish the necessary elements of that claim. 1 E.g., J.H. v. State, 370 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 379 So.2d 209 (Fla.1980). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Burleigh House Condominium, Inc. v. Buchwald
green
1 sentence1981It otherwise appearing that the allegations on the face of the disputed count of AGB's complaint demonstrate the existence of the necessary elements of the defense of res judicata, see Burleigh House Condominium, Inc. v. Buchwald, 368 So.2d 1316 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), and that therefore the defense is cognizable on a motion to dismiss, [7] the order of the trial court is Affirmed. | 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.