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 1988–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
HEATHER DERONER HOROWITZ v. MICHAEL E. HOROWITZgreen1 sentence2024Id. 1 The wife’s initial brief does not advance any argument that the incurrence of interest and penalties should have been treated as intentional dissipation by the husband, so we do not address that issue. 3 “The failure to make specific findings regarding need and ability to pay may preclude meaningful appellate review and result in a case having to be reversed and remanded.” Horowitz v. Horowitz, 273 So. 3d 263, 267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Boutwell v. Adamsgreen1 sentence2013See Boutwell, 920 So.2d at 158 ; see also Wagner v. Wagner, 61 So.3d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), reh’g denied, (holding that trial courts must consider the ten factors listed in section 61.075(1) when crafting an unequal distribution of marital assets). | 1 | 1 |
Hills v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Boutwell, 920 So.2d at 158 ; see also Wagner v. Wagner, 61 So.3d 1141, 1143 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), reh’g denied, (holding that trial courts must consider the ten factors listed in section 61.075(1) when crafting an unequal distribution of marital assets). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas Smith Farms, Inc. v. Aldaygreen1 sentence1995For example, in Thomas Smith Farms, Inc. v. Alday, 182 So.2d 405, 406 (Fla. 1966), Justice Drew stated: We would not be consistent with our oft repeated holding that this latter act [the Workmen's Compensation Act] should always be construed liberally in favor of the workman if, in this instance, we should as petitioner urges adopt a construction that would eliminate from the protection of this law a large group of workmen. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cantor v. Cochran
green
2 sentences1989Of the ten factors set out in Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So.2d 173 (Fla.1966) for determining whether a workers’ compensation claimant is an employee or an independent contractor, the primary factor is the right to exercise control over the worker. 1988We agree and reverse. *1111 In Cantor v. Cochran, 184 So.2d 173 (Fla. 1966) the supreme court detailed the ten factors formulated by 1 Restatement of Law, Agency 2d, § 220 for determining whether an employer-employee relationship exists. | 2 | 1988–1989 |
United States v. Arvizu
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 274 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Rio Seco ex rel. Rio Seco v. Alfred Meyers Trucking, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1997We find the present ease to be more in line with our decision in Rio Seco v. Alfred Meyers Trucking, Inc., 208 So.2d 265 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Magarian v. Southern Fruit Distributors
green
2 sentences1989La Grande, supra; Magarian v. Southern Fruit Distributors, 146 Fla. 773 , 1 So.2d 858 (1941); Collins v. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance Co., 247 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Herman v. Roche, 533 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). 1989La Grande, supra; Magarian v. Southern Fruit Distributors, 146 Fla. 773 , 1 So.2d 858 (1941); Collins v. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance Co., 247 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Herman v. Roche, 533 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Collins v. Federated Mutual Imp. & Hdwe. Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1989La Grande, supra; Magarian v. Southern Fruit Distributors, 146 Fla. 773 , 1 So.2d 858 (1941); Collins v. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance Co., 247 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Herman v. Roche, 533 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Herman v. Roche
green
1 sentence1989La Grande, supra; Magarian v. Southern Fruit Distributors, 146 Fla. 773 , 1 So.2d 858 (1941); Collins v. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance Co., 247 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Herman v. Roche, 533 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
La Grande v. B & L SERVICES, INC.
green
1 sentence1989La Grande, supra; Magarian v. Southern Fruit Distributors, 146 Fla. 773 , 1 So.2d 858 (1941); Collins v. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance Co., 247 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Herman v. Roche, 533 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.