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 2009–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Okengreen2 sentences2015The standard which has been defined in cases involving certiorari review of denial of a motion to dismiss in medical malpractice actions, as in other certiorari reviews, is “ ‘a violation of clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.’ ” See Nieves v. Viera, 150 So.3d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (quoting Williams v. Oken, 62 So.3d 1129, 1132 (Fla.2011)). 2015Certiorari relief is discretionary, but this Court should exercise this discretion only where the party has shown that “ ‘there has been a violation of clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.’” Williams, 62 So.3d at 1133 (quoting Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 527 (Fla. 1995)). | 4 | 6 |
Haines City Community Dev. v. Heggsgreen2 sentences2023Id. at 1133 (quoting Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523, 527 (Fla. 1995)). 2015Certiorari relief is discretionary, but this Court should exercise this discretion only where the party has shown that “ ‘there has been a violation of clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.’” Williams, 62 So.3d at 1133 (quoting Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 527 (Fla. 1995)). | 3 | 3 |
Nieves, M.D. v. Vieragreen1 sentence2015The standard which has been defined in cases involving certiorari review of denial of a motion to dismiss in medical malpractice actions, as in other certiorari reviews, is “ ‘a violation of clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice.’ ” See Nieves v. Viera, 150 So.3d 1236, 1238 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (quoting Williams v. Oken, 62 So.3d 1129, 1132 (Fla.2011)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Target Corp. v. Vogel
green
1 sentence2013In Target, this court denied the petition for writ of certiorari (as we are doing in the instant case), noting “the circuit court’s broad discretion in overseeing discovery.” Target, 41 So.3d at 963 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Combs v. State
green
1 sentence2009Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93 (Fla.1983) (district courts should exercise this discretion only when there has been a violation of clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice). 3 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.