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 1972–1991 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 |
|---|---|---|
Seaboard Coastline R. Co. v. Addisongreen1 sentence1991See Seaboard Coastline Railroad Co. v. Addison, 502 So.2d 1241 (Fla.1987) (error for court to refuse to instruct the jury on the requirements of regulations under Florida Uniform Traffic Control Laws). | 1 | 1 |
Columbus Hotel Corp. v. Hotel Management Co.green2 sentences1990Because the course of dealing between the parties did not put the property owner on notice of the contractor's fraudulent character or intent, the contractor was not relieved of his duty of fair dealing and honest disclosure at the time of execution of the "Take Over Agreement." These points being stated somewhat abstractly, are different facets of the single issue. [2] Seaboard's brief simply adopts Barker's brief. [3] Seaboard, as surety, was apparently obligated to insure the performance of the contract should Barker default, and we so assume for purposes of this opinion based on the allega 1990Because the course of dealing between the parties did not put the property owner on notice of the contractor's fraudulent character or intent, the contractor was not relieved of his duty of fair dealing and honest disclosure at the time of execution of the "Take Over Agreement." These points being stated somewhat abstractly, are different facets of the single issue. [2] Seaboard's brief simply adopts Barker's brief. [3] Seaboard, as surety, was apparently obligated to insure the performance of the contract should Barker default, and we so assume for purposes of this opinion based on the allega | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
North Shore Hospital v. Martinyellow1 sentence1978Our sister court seemed to imply as much in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Curtiss, supra ; but see North Shore Hospital v. Martin, 344 So.2d 256 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State ex rel. Dedmon v. Carroll
green
2 sentences1973Dedmon v. Carroll [Fla., 1963, 151 So.2d 5 ] reiterated the Seaboard test and added the test of whether or not the complaining party was misled or prejudiced by the mistake. 1973Dedmon v. Carroll [Fla., 1963, 151 So.2d 5 ] reiterated the Seaboard test and added the test of whether or not the complaining party was misled or prejudiced by the mistake. | 2 | 1972–1973 |
Smith v. Bollinger
green
1 sentence1990Because the course of dealing between the parties did not put the property owner on notice of the contractor's fraudulent character or intent, the contractor was not relieved of his duty of fair dealing and honest disclosure at the time of execution of the "Take Over Agreement." These points being stated somewhat abstractly, are different facets of the single issue. [2] Seaboard's brief simply adopts Barker's brief. [3] Seaboard, as surety, was apparently obligated to insure the performance of the contract should Barker default, and we so assume for purposes of this opinion based on the allega | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Fuller v. Fuller
green
1 sentence1990Because the course of dealing between the parties did not put the property owner on notice of the contractor's fraudulent character or intent, the contractor was not relieved of his duty of fair dealing and honest disclosure at the time of execution of the "Take Over Agreement." These points being stated somewhat abstractly, are different facets of the single issue. [2] Seaboard's brief simply adopts Barker's brief. [3] Seaboard, as surety, was apparently obligated to insure the performance of the contract should Barker default, and we so assume for purposes of this opinion based on the allega | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Seaboard Coast Line RR Co. v. Smith
green
1 sentence1984In Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Smith, 359 So.2d 427 (Fla. 1978), the dismissal of Seaboard's claim for contribution from the West Robinson Fruit Company was affirmed. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Lincenberg v. Issen
green
1 sentence1978Lincenberg v. Issen, 318 So.2d 386 (Fla. 1975). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers
green
1 sentence1978In view of Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, supra , and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Curtiss, supra , as well as Section 768.31(4)(f), we hold that Seaboard's claim for contribution under Florida's Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act was precluded by the judgment upon directed verdict in favor of Walker entered in the Warder suit to which Seaboard was a party. [7] If an adjudication against the plaintiff in favor of one defendant is going to be binding upon a codefendant in subsequent litigation, it seems reasonable that the codefendant who is to be bound should have the right to ap | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Warn Industries v. Geist
green
1 sentence1978Warn Industries v. Geist, 343 So.2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Curtiss
green
2 sentences1978Our sister court seemed to imply as much in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Curtiss, supra ; but see North Shore Hospital v. Martin, 344 So.2d 256 (Fla.3d DCA 1977). 1978In view of Jackson v. Florida Weathermakers, supra , and Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Curtiss, supra , as well as Section 768.31(4)(f), we hold that Seaboard's claim for contribution under Florida's Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act was precluded by the judgment upon directed verdict in favor of Walker entered in the Warder suit to which Seaboard was a party. [7] If an adjudication against the plaintiff in favor of one defendant is going to be binding upon a codefendant in subsequent litigation, it seems reasonable that the codefendant who is to be bound should have the right to ap | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Hotel Roosevelt Co. v. City of Jacksonville
green
1 sentence1976In contrast to such cases as Hotel Roosevelt Co., Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 192 So.2d 334 (Fla.App. 1st, 1966), therefore, the questioned order was merely an interlocutory resolution of a procedural controversy between Wainwright and Seaboard, not a final order disposing of Seaboard’s claim against Battle. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Bessie Cannon v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences1972Co. v. Hayes, 65 Fla. 1 , 60 So. 792 ; Cannon v. State, 1926, 91 Fla. 214 , 107 So. 360 ; Sauer v. Sauer, Fla.App. 1961, 128 So.2d 761 . 1972Co. v. Hayes, 65 Fla. 1 , 60 So. 792 ; Cannon v. State, 1926, 91 Fla. 214 , 107 So. 360 ; Sauer v. Sauer, Fla.App. 1961, 128 So.2d 761 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Sauer v. Sauer
green
1 sentence1972Co. v. Hayes, 65 Fla. 1 , 60 So. 792 ; Cannon v. State, 1926, 91 Fla. 214 , 107 So. 360 ; Sauer v. Sauer, Fla.App. 1961, 128 So.2d 761 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Hayes
green
2 sentences1972Co. v. Hayes, 65 Fla. 1 , 60 So. 792 ; Cannon v. State, 1926, 91 Fla. 214 , 107 So. 360 ; Sauer v. Sauer, Fla.App. 1961, 128 So.2d 761 . 1972Co. v. Hayes, 65 Fla. 1 , 60 So. 792 ; Cannon v. State, 1926, 91 Fla. 214 , 107 So. 360 ; Sauer v. Sauer, Fla.App. 1961, 128 So.2d 761 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.