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 1993–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hutchison v. Prudential Ins. Co.green2 sentences2023Co. of Am., Inc., 645 So. 2d 1047, 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)). 2021Co. of Am., Inc., 645 So. 2d 1047, 1050 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)). | 3 | 3 |
Walker v. Department of Veterans Affairsgreen2 sentences2023“The purpose of the statutory requirement of a signed writing ‘is to document what the employee disclosed, and to whom the employee disclosed it, thus avoiding problems of proof for purposes of the Whistle-blower’s Act.’” Walker v. Fla. Dep’t of Veterans’ Affs., 925 So. 2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (quoting Hutchison v. Prudential Ins. 2021As relevant here, the protected disclosure requires an employee’s “written and signed complaint.” § 112.3187(7); see also Walker v. Fla. Dep’t of Veterans’ Affs., 925 So. 2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“The purpose of the statutory requirement of a signed writing ‘is to document what the employee disclosed, and to whom the employee disclosed it, thus avoiding problems of proof for purposes of the Whistle-blower Act.’”) (quoting Hutchison v. Prudential Ins. | 2 | 2 |
Brackin v. Bolesgreen2 sentences1999The purpose of the statutory privilege is “to avoid a fifth amendment violation.” Brackin v. Boles, 452 So.2d 540, 544 (Fla.1984). “[Tjhe purpose of the statute is to clothe with statutory immunity only such statements and communications as the driver, owner, or occupant of a vehicle is compelled to make in order to comply with his or her statutory duty under section 316.066(1) and (2).” Id. 1999The purpose of the statutory privilege is “to avoid a fifth amendment violation.” Brackin v. Boles, 452 So.2d 540, 544 (Fla.1984). “[Tjhe purpose of the statute is to clothe with statutory immunity only such statements and communications as the driver, owner, or occupant of a vehicle is compelled to make in order to comply with his or her statutory duty under section 316.066(1) and (2).” Id. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Norstromgreen2 sentences2012The purpose of the statutory privilege is to “ensure that the state does not violate an individual’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination when he or she is compelled to truthfully report to law enforcement the facts surrounding an automobile accident.” State v. Cino, 931 So.2d 164, 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); see also State v. Norstrom, 613 So.2d 437, 440 (Fla.1993) (stating that the purpose of the privilege is “to ensure that accident information could be compelled without Fifth Amendment violations”). 1993According to the Norstrom court, the purpose of the statutory privilege under section 316.066(4) is "to ensure that accident information could be compelled without Fifth Amendment violations." Id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Cinogreen1 sentence2012The purpose of the statutory privilege is to “ensure that the state does not violate an individual’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination when he or she is compelled to truthfully report to law enforcement the facts surrounding an automobile accident.” State v. Cino, 931 So.2d 164, 168 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); see also State v. Norstrom, 613 So.2d 437, 440 (Fla.1993) (stating that the purpose of the privilege is “to ensure that accident information could be compelled without Fifth Amendment violations”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mirza v. Trombley
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 1100 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.