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 1964–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nourse v. Austingreen1 sentence2019The case is, therefore, remanded to the trial court for that specific and limited purpose."); Nourse v. Austin, 436 A.2d 738, 739 (Vt. 1981) ("Since it appears that the verdict itself was the -21- result of compromise, however, justice and fairness require that the cause be remanded for a new trial on all issues, including liability."); UNC Teton Exploration Drilling, Inc. v. Peyton, 774 P.2d 584 , 596 n.8 (Wyo. 1989) ("A second chance upon remand for proof according to the appellee lacks something in litigative fairness to the opposing contestant. | 1 | 1 |
Lowe v. Lowegreen1 sentence2018See Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, 892 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (trial court did not err in ordering the payor spouse to secure the alimony award by obtaining life insurance since the issue was raised during trial without objection); see also Eisele v. Eisele, 91 So. 3d 873, 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (trial court does not have authority to require a party to obtain life insurance to secure child support payments unless such relief has been requested); Lowe v. Lowe, 789 So. 2d 1202, 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (trial court erred in ordering the payor spouse to obtain life insurance to secure his | 1 | 1 |
Shipes v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, 892 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (trial court did not err in ordering the payor spouse to secure the alimony award by obtaining life insurance since the issue was raised during trial without objection); see also Eisele v. Eisele, 91 So. 3d 873, 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (trial court does not have authority to require a party to obtain life insurance to secure child support payments unless such relief has been requested); Lowe v. Lowe, 789 So. 2d 1202, 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (trial court erred in ordering the payor spouse to obtain life insurance to secure his | 1 | 1 |
Hines v. Stategreen2 sentences2018As a matter of due process, probationers are entitled to notice of which laws the probationer is alleged to have violated and “an opportunity to present a defense to them.” Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183, 185 (Fla. 1978); see also N.L. v. State, 825 So. 2d 509, 509-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). 2018However, the violation of probation affidavit need only “allege the basic facts concerning the alleged violation, such as its nature, time, and place of occurrence.” Hines, 358 So. 2d at 185 . | 1 | 1 |
NL v. Stategreen1 sentence2018As a matter of due process, probationers are entitled to notice of which laws the probationer is alleged to have violated and “an opportunity to present a defense to them.” Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183, 185 (Fla. 1978); see also N.L. v. State, 825 So. 2d 509, 509-10 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Stalnaker v. Stalnakergreen1 sentence2018See Stalnaker v. Stalnaker, 892 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (trial court did not err in ordering the payor spouse to secure the alimony award by obtaining life insurance since the issue was raised during trial without objection); see also Eisele v. Eisele, 91 So. 3d 873, 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (trial court does not have authority to require a party to obtain life insurance to secure child support payments unless such relief has been requested); Lowe v. Lowe, 789 So. 2d 1202, 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (trial court erred in ordering the payor spouse to obtain life insurance to secure his | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
California v. Trombetta
green
2 sentences2005"Taken together, this group of constitutional privileges delivers exculpatory evidence into the hands of the accused, thereby protecting the innocent from erroneous conviction and ensuring the integrity of our criminal justice system." California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2532 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984). 2005"Taken together, this group of constitutional privileges delivers exculpatory evidence into the hands of the accused, thereby protecting the innocent from erroneous conviction and ensuring the integrity of our criminal justice system." California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct. 2528, 2532 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984). | 2 | 1986–2005 |
United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal
green
2 sentences2005In Melendez v. State, 498 So.2d 1258 (Fla. *453 1986), a case involving potentially exculpatory evidence not collected by law enforcement, the Florida Supreme Court wrote: This claim, relating to the opportunity to present a defense, involves "what might loosely be called the area of constitutionally guaranteed access to evidence." United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 , 102 S.Ct. 3440, 3446 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982). 2005In Melendez v. State, 498 So.2d 1258 (Fla. *453 1986), a case involving potentially exculpatory evidence not collected by law enforcement, the Florida Supreme Court wrote: This claim, relating to the opportunity to present a defense, involves "what might loosely be called the area of constitutionally guaranteed access to evidence." United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 , 102 S.Ct. 3440, 3446 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982). | 2 | 1986–2005 |
UNC Teton Exploration Drilling, Inc. v. Peyton
green
1 sentence2019The case is, therefore, remanded to the trial court for that specific and limited purpose."); Nourse v. Austin, 436 A.2d 738, 739 (Vt. 1981) ("Since it appears that the verdict itself was the -21- result of compromise, however, justice and fairness require that the cause be remanded for a new trial on all issues, including liability."); UNC Teton Exploration Drilling, Inc. v. Peyton, 774 P.2d 584 , 596 n.8 (Wyo. 1989) ("A second chance upon remand for proof according to the appellee lacks something in litigative fairness to the opposing contestant. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Melendez v. State
green
1 sentence2005In Melendez v. State, 498 So.2d 1258 (Fla. *453 1986), a case involving potentially exculpatory evidence not collected by law enforcement, the Florida Supreme Court wrote: This claim, relating to the opportunity to present a defense, involves "what might loosely be called the area of constitutionally guaranteed access to evidence." United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 , 102 S.Ct. 3440, 3446 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1193 (1982). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Robinson v. STATE, DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB.
green
1 sentence1999While laches can be a valid defense to an effort to collect child support arrearage, see Davis v. Department of Revenue, 689 So.2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Robinson v. State, 473 So.2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Phillips v. Adams. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Davis v. DEPT. OF REV. ON BEHALF OF DAVIS
green
1 sentence1999While laches can be a valid defense to an effort to collect child support arrearage, see Davis v. Department of Revenue, 689 So.2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Robinson v. State, 473 So.2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Phillips v. Adams. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Phillips v. Adams
green
1 sentence1999Holmes contends that the trial court, in dismissing the petition, denied him the opportunity to present the defense of laches to the claimed arrearage in child support, citing Phillips v. Adams, 339 So.2d 665 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Martin Company v. Carpenter
green
1 sentence1995By letters dated July 19, August 6, and August 20, 1993, Crawford & Company apprised the judge of compensation claims and Ms. Teneyck of its intention to raise a defense under Martin v. Carpenter, where it was decided that a false representation as to physical condition or health made by an employee in procuring employment will preclude the benefits of the Workmen’s Compensation Act for an otherwise compensable injury if there is shown to be a causal relationship between the injury and the false representation and if it is also shown that (1) the employee knew the representation to be false, ( | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Inland Bonding Co. v. Mainland Nat. Bank
green
1 sentence1964"In order to assure plaintiff every conceivable protection, in view of the abrupt death of the witness and lack of opportunity to submit him to cross-examination, it is my judgment that the deposition should be admitted for the consideration of the jury for whatever it is worth, subject to cautionary instructions of the court and such observations as the circumstances may require, Inland Bonding Co. v. Mainland National Bank of Pleasantville, D.C.N.J., 3 F.R.D. 438 ." The rulings of the courts in the Inland Bonding Co. case and Rosenthal case cited and quoted above conform to the general state | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.