understanding standard (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

understanding standard in Florida

8 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2023 3 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.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Suarez v. Benihana National of Florida Corp.green
fladistctapp · 2012 · cited in 3 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2016–2023
2 sentences

2023However, “we do so with the understanding that this standard is ‘somewhat narrowed,’ as it must take into account the heightened standard of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ upon which an order of dismissal for fraud on the court must be based.” Suarez v. Benihana Nat. of Florida Corp., 88 So. 3d 349, 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

2021Although we review such an order under an abuse of discretion standard, “we do so with the understanding that this standard is ‘somewhat narrowed,’ as it must take into account the heightened standard of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ upon which an order of dismissal for fraud on the court must be based.” Suarez v. Benihana Nat. of Fla. Corp., 88 So. 3d 349, 352 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (citations omitted).

33
St. John's Presbytery v. Central Presbyterian Church of St. Petersburggreen
fla · 1958 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021Petersburg, 102 So. 2d 714, 718 (Fla. 1958), a case involving a hierarchical church: When the church is representative, republican or episcopal in government, the authorities uniformly hold that the church property whether held by an express or an implied trust 2 Although many courts have treated the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine as a question of subject matter jurisdiction, I do not think that is the proper understanding of the doctrine.

11
Empire World Towers, LLC v. CDR Créances, S.A.S.green
fladistctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021See also Willie-Koonce v. Miami Sunshine Transfer & Tours Corp., 233 So. 3d 1271 , 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (observing that because an order dismissing an action is a “severe sanction, to be administered only in the most egregious cases,” we review such an order under “a narrowed abuse of discretion standard”) (quoting Empire World Towers, LLC v. CDR Créances, S.A.S., 89 So. 3d 1034, 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)).

11
Tucker v. Stategreen
fla · 1990 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018See Tucker, 559 So. 2d at 220 (“If the defendant has been advised by counsel 10 about the advantages and disadvantages of a jury trial, then the colloquy will serve to verify the defendant’s understanding of the waiver.”).

11
Medina v. FLORIDA EAST COAST RY., LLCgreen
fladistctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016“A trial court has the inherent authority to dismiss an action when it finds that a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court.” Medina v. Fla. East Coast Ry., L.L.C., 866 So.2d 89, 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).

11
Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Companies, Inc.green
fladistctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012See Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Co., 993 So.2d 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

11
Robert Muench v. Thomas Israel and Attorney General of Wisconsin, Richard Worthing v. Thomas R. Israelgreen
ca7 · 1983 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989
1 sentence

1989Differing terminology has sometimes clouded an understanding of the defense, as explained in Muench v. Israel, 715 F.2d 1124, 1142-43 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied sub nom.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Leo's Gulf Liquors v. Lakhani green
fladistctapp · 2001
1 sentence

2012Although we review the trial court’s order under an abuse of discretion standard, Leo’s Gulf Liquors v. Lakhani, 802 So.2d 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), we do so with the understanding that this standard is “somewhat narrowed,” as it must take into account the heightened standard of “clear and convincing evidence” upon which an order of dismissal for fraud on the court must be based.

12012–2012
Carawan v. State red
fla · 1987
1 sentence

1989While it is clear that simple possession under subsection (1)(e) is a necessarily lesser included offense of possession with intent to sell under subsection (1)(a), it is also clear that possession under either subsection is not a necessarily lesser included offense of sale because the definition of sale does not require proof of possession. [1] Since I believe the majority has clearly misconstrued the meaning of this first main rule of statutory construction, and since a proper understanding of such rule is so critical to the correct application of the Carawan analysis, an analysis which we a

11989–1989
Rhodes v. Hogan green
scotus · 1984
1 sentence

1989Worthing v. Israel, 467 U.S. 1228 , 104 S.Ct. 2682 , 81 L.Ed.2d 878 (1984): Petitioners, of course, claim they are not attempting to impose upon Wisconsin what they call a "diminished responsibility defense," thereby attempting to capitalize on the somewhat misleading nature of that particular label for the doctrine.

11989–1989
Carter v. Alabama green
scotus · 1984
1 sentence

1989Worthing v. Israel, 467 U.S. 1228 , 104 S.Ct. 2682 , 81 L.Ed.2d 878 (1984): Petitioners, of course, claim they are not attempting to impose upon Wisconsin what they call a "diminished responsibility defense," thereby attempting to capitalize on the somewhat misleading nature of that particular label for the doctrine.

11989–1989
Hall v. Illinois green
scotus · 1984
1 sentence

1989Worthing v. Israel, 467 U.S. 1228 , 104 S.Ct. 2682 , 81 L.Ed.2d 878 (1984): Petitioners, of course, claim they are not attempting to impose upon Wisconsin what they call a "diminished responsibility defense," thereby attempting to capitalize on the somewhat misleading nature of that particular label for the doctrine.

11989–1989

Where else courts name it

NY 49 (1889–2026) IL 43 (1963–2026) PA 37 (1929–2023) CA 31 (1918–2026) LA 24 (1981–2023) GA 16 (1934–2024) OR 13 (1923–2021) TX 13 (1936–2024) NJ 10 (1952–2017) MO 9 (1898–2017) OH 9 (1934–2020) FL 8 (1989–2023) MI 8 (1872–2023) VA 8 (1925–2010) WA 8 (1973–2020) UT 7 (2012–2023) AL 7 (1887–2012) MD 6 (1993–2023) WY 5 (1974–2003) MA 5 (1985–2018) DC 5 (1974–2025) KY 5 (2006–2021) OK 5 (1909–1994) IA 4 (1924–2021) DE 4 (1934–2025) CT 4 (1993–2011) MT 4 (1977–2021) CO 3 (1991–2018) MN 3 (1891–1980) WI 3 (1978–2016) RI 3 (2010–2019) SD 2 (1913–1913) VT 2 (1986–2025) AZ 2 (2005–2006) IN 2 (2015–2019) HI 2 (1994–2005) NH 2 (1977–2013) KS 2 (1911–2020) NC 2 (1967–1976)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check