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.
7 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1892–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commissiongreen1 sentence1997In Spaulding v. Florida Industrial Commission, 154 So.2d 334, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963), the court stated that “mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed ‘misconduct’ within the meaning of the statute.” The issue in this case is not whether it was legal for the company to claim these expenses, but whether it was reasonable for Gerhart to withhold documents which she believed belonged to her. | 1 | 1 |
Russell v. Eckertgreen1 sentence1991See Russell v. Eckert, 195 So.2d at 622 (actions of company's agent "may bind the company by waiver or estoppel so as to preclude the company from relying on irregularities... ."); see also Abrams v. General Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Dolan, Fertig & Curtis v. Gulf Insurance Co.green1 sentence1983The extreme case would involve the receipt of a claim by the insured minutes before the midnight expiration of the term on the last day thereof. 419 So.2d at 1110 (emphasis supplied). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Poole v. JB Hunt Transport, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002Merely having a company rule requiring employees to be careful, however, does not transform several negligen[t] acts into misconduct. *485 Poole, 703 So.2d at 1159 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Abrams v. GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY INC.
neutral
1 sentence1991Co., 508 So.2d 436 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Fidelity Mutual Life Ass'n v. Dewey
neutral
2 sentences1921In an action on a surety bond, given to an insurance company by its agent, having express reference to an employment contract, pleas were filed under which a defense may be proven by appropriate evidence as to the course of dealing between the agent and the company in violation of the contract of employment, which may have operated to release the sureties, upon the general principles stated in Fidelity Mutual Life Association v. Dewey, 83 Minn. 389 , 86 N. W. 1921In an action on a surety bond, given to an insurance company by its agent, having express reference to an employment contract, pleas were filed under which a defense may be proven by appropriate evidence as to the course of dealing between the agent and the company in violation of the contract of employment, which may have operated to release the sureties, upon the general principles stated in Fidelity Mutual Life Association v. Dewey, 83 Minn. 389 , 86 N. W. | 1 | 1921–1921 |
Fishblate v. Fidelity Co.
green
2 sentences1908Rep. 1017 , point 2 of the syllabus, holds th,at, “When application is made to the agent of an insurance company for permission ¡to move insured property to another location, and the agent verbally consents to the removal, but fails to endorse such consent. on the policy, such failure cannot be set up by the company as a defense to an action on the policy, notwithstanding a provision therein that no officer, agent or representative of the company shall have pow|er to waive airy provision or condition of the policy or to grant any privileges or permission affecting the insurance, except by writ 1908Rep. 1017 , point 2 of the syllabus, holds th,at, “When application is made to the agent of an insurance company for permission ¡to move insured property to another location, and the agent verbally consents to the removal, but fails to endorse such consent. on the policy, such failure cannot be set up by the company as a defense to an action on the policy, notwithstanding a provision therein that no officer, agent or representative of the company shall have pow|er to waive airy provision or condition of the policy or to grant any privileges or permission affecting the insurance, except by writ | 1 | 1908–1908 |
McVeety v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co.
neutral
1 sentence1892Co., 45 Minn., 268 , where it was held that if a person knowingly induces the conductor of a railroad train to violate a rule of his company, and carry him without charge, he is guilty of a fraud on the company and can not claim the rights of a passenger, it is said, citing the second and third cases supra, from Texas, and other authorities, that the same result follows if he rides upon a part of the train from which passengers are excluded, knowing that his act is against the rules of the carrier, and in permitting it the conductor is disobedient. | 1 | 1892–1892 |
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.