52 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1934–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nicholas A. James v. Daniel K. Leigh, and Kenny Leigh, P.A.green2 sentences2024“When the trial court denies a motion to dismiss on immunity grounds, certiorari review . . . is proper because absolute immunity protects a party from having to defend a lawsuit at all and waiting until final appeal would render such immunity meaningless if the lower court denied dismissal in error.” James v. Leigh, 145 So. 3d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); see also Bank of N.Y. 2023James v. Leigh, 145 So. 3d 1006, 1008 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“When the trial court denies a motion to dismiss on immunity grounds, certiorari review of the non-final order is proper because absolute immunity protects a party from having to defend a lawsuit at all and waiting until final appeal would render such immunity meaningless if the lower court denied dismissal in error.”). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Paskogreen2 sentences2016State v. Pasko, 815 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). 2016State v. Pasko, 815 So.2d 680, 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). | 2 | 2 |
Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savagegreen2 sentences2016Martin -Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1098-99 , 1098 n. 1 (Fla.1987) (holding that certiorari is not a proper vehicle for reviewing a denial of a motion to strike a claim for punitive damages, notwithstanding that such a claim can serve as a basis for; an inquiry into protected matters). ■ Consequently, although we might quarrel with the'trial court’s determination that Florida’s independent tort rule is not a bar to Berezovsky’s punitive damage claim, our limited certiorari jurisdiction prevents us from quashing the trial court’s order on this basis. 1997See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987); Thompson v. Thompson, 635 So.2d 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). | 1 | 2 |
Foster v. Chunggreen1 sentence2025See Foster v. Chung, 738 So. 2d 350 , 352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (remanding “for a determination of whether [the trial court] would grant [the plaintiff] an extension to serve [the defendant] or dismiss the action in light of rule 1.070(j) as amended”). | 1 | 1 |
Quality Holdings of Florida, Inc. v. Selective Investments, IV, LLCgreen1 sentence2025We reject the Association’s argument that the lack of a transcript for the motion to dismiss hearing requires affirmance. “[A]n appellate court may reverse an order even in the absence of an adequate record if the order 10 is fundamentally erroneous on its face.” Quality Holdings of Fla., Inc. v. Selective Invs., IV, LLC, 25 So. 3d 34, 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kalogeropolousgreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., State v. Kalogeropolous, 758 So. 2d 110, 111 (Fla. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
LoBiondo v. Schwartzgreen1 sentence2019Bd. of Trs. v. Monk, 68 So. 3d 316, 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011))); see also LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 970 A.2d 1007, 1020 (N.J. 2009) (discussing the two categories of anti-SLAPP statutes and citing Florida's as within the category that "include[s] a legislative declaration that a public participant who has exercised his or her free speech right, sometimes in statutorily defined manner, enjoys immunity"). | 1 | 1 |
HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Nelsongreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., HSBC Bank USA, Nat'l Ass'n v. Nelson, 246 So. 3d 486, 489 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Florida State University Board of Trustees v. Monkgreen1 sentence2019Bd. of Trs. v. Monk, 68 So. 3d 316, 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011))); see also LoBiondo v. Schwartz, 970 A.2d 1007, 1020 (N.J. 2009) (discussing the two categories of anti-SLAPP statutes and citing Florida's as within the category that "include[s] a legislative declaration that a public participant who has exercised his or her free speech right, sometimes in statutorily defined manner, enjoys immunity"). | 1 | 1 |
Hudson v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Hudson v. State, 745 So. 2d 997, 999 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Dent v. Belingreen1 sentence2018See id. (finding a party is entitled to a declaration when that party pleads the necessary factual allegations for each element of a declaratory judgment claim). | 1 | 1 |
Houk v. PennyMac Corp.green1 sentence2017See Houk v. PennyMac Corp., 210 So. 3d 726, 730-31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Fish Tale Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Nice, 106 So. 3d 57, 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). -4- " 'Waiver' has been defined 'as the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right or conduct which implies the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right.' " Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 15 So. 3d at 687 (quoting Raymond James Fin. | 1 | 1 |
Fish Tale Sales & Service, Inc. v. Nicegreen1 sentence2017See Houk v. PennyMac Corp., 210 So. 3d 726, 730-31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Fish Tale Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Nice, 106 So. 3d 57, 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). -4- " 'Waiver' has been defined 'as the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right or conduct which implies the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right.' " Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 15 So. 3d at 687 (quoting Raymond James Fin. | 1 | 1 |
Joseph v. Stategreen2 sentences2017The State gave notice of appeal. • Appellate Analysis In a motion to dismiss for immunity under section 776.032, Florida Statutes, “[t]he trial court’s factual findings are entitled to deference and must be supported by competent substantial evidence.” Joseph v. State, 103 So.3d 227, 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). 2017“The trial court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo.” Id. at 230 . | 1 | 1 |
Styron v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Styron v. State, 662 So.2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). 2015See Styron v. State, 662 So. 2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Gee v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Gee v. State, 13 So.3d 68, 69 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (reversing summary denial where the movant alleged that counsel twice failed to file a notice of expiration of speedy trial time prior to moving for dismissal on speedy trial grounds, as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.191, and the trial judge expressed doubt about finding a jury during the rule 3.191 recapture window but denied the motion to dismiss because defense counsel had failed to follow the proper procedure). | 1 | 1 |
Lonestar Alternative Solution, Inc. v. Leview-Boymelgreen Soleil Developers, LLCgreen1 sentence2010Solution, Inc. v. Leview-Boymelgreen Soleil Developers, LLC., 10 So.3d 1169, 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (citing Meadows Cmty. Ass’n v. Russell-Tutty, 928 So.2d 1276, 1280 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
| MEADOWS COMMUNITY ASS'N v. Russell-Tuttygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gee v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Guenthergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lebrongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miami-Dade County v. Fentegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Koehler v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Jenne v. Marantogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wilcox v. Morsegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Broward Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Heinz v. Watsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gelb v. Mirandagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pizzi v. Central Bank and Trust Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mobil Oil Corp. v. Dade County Esoil Management Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Khandjian v. Compagnie Financiere Mediterranee Cofimed, SAgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Feaglegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Montgomery Ward & Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Adams Engineering Co. v. Construction Products Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hillman Const. Corp. v. Wainer
green
2 sentences2010Hillman Const. Corp. v. Wainer, 636 So.2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). 1996Hillman Const Corp. v. Wainer, 636 So.2d 576 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). | 2 | 1996–2010 |
Del Duca v. Anthony
green
2 sentences2005Anthony, 557 So.2d at 658-59, approved by, Del Duca, 587 So.2d at 1308-09 . 2002Anthony, 557 So.2d at 658-59 , approved by, Del Duca, 587 So.2d at 1308-09 . *977 "First, the defendant is required to show there has been no record activity for the year preceding the motion. | 2 | 2002–2005 |
State v. West
green
2 sentences1993“Intent is not an issue to be decided on a motion to dismiss under rule 3.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, since intent is usually inferred from the acts of the parties and the surrounding circumstances; being a state of mind, intent is a question of fact to be determined by the trier of fact, who has the opportunity to observe all of the witnesses.” J.T.S. at 419, citing State v. West, 262 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA1972). 1983State v. Evans, 394 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); State v. Rogers, 386 So.2d 278 (Fla. 2d DCA), petition for review denied, 392 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 1980); Cummings v. State, 378 So.2d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), cert. denied, 386 So.2d 635 (Fla. 1980); State v. J.T.S., 373 So.2d 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); State v. West, 262 So.2d 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). | 2 | 1983–1993 |
Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee
green
1 sentence2026That said, Greenbox contends we should affirm because we do not have a transcript of the motion to dismiss hearing, citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
United Automobile Insurance Co. v. Law Offices of Libman
green
1 sentence2021Libman, 46 So. 3d 1101 , 1103–04 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“A motion to dismiss under rule 1.140(b) tests whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action, not whether the plaintiff will prevail at trial. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
NORMAN GUNDEL v. AV HOMES, INC. AND AVATAR PROPERTIES, INC.
green
2 sentences2021In the order on appeal, the trial court concluded that Plaintiffs’ argument that the ordinary motion to dismiss standard applied contravened the plain language, not of the statute, but of Gundel v. AV Homes, Inc., 264 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019). 4 In Gundel, the Second District discussed the dismissal standard applicable under Florida’s Anti-SLAPP statute. 2021The court recognized, as we have, that “the statute is silent as to the burden or procedure for considering a motion to dismiss.” Id. at 314 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Mobley v. State
green
1 sentence2018Canchola thereafter filed a motion to dismiss violation of probation for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, relying on section 948.06(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2015), and Mobley v. State, 197 So. 3d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Green Tree Servicing, LLC v. McLeod
green
1 sentence2017See Houk v. PennyMac Corp., 210 So. 3d 726, 730-31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); Fish Tale Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Nice, 106 So. 3d 57, 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). -4- " 'Waiver' has been defined 'as the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right or conduct which implies the voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right.' " Green Tree Servicing, LLC, 15 So. 3d at 687 (quoting Raymond James Fin. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Globe Newspaper Co. v. King
green
1 sentence2016Globe Newspaper Co., 658 So.2d at 519-20 . ■Although in Club Eden Roc, Inc. v. Fortune Cookie Restaurant, Inc., 490 So.2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), this Court-enter-, tained a petition for certiorari to review-an order denying a motion to dismiss a claim for punitive damages based on Florida’s independent tort rule, this decision predates both section 768.72 and the Florida Supreme Court’s determination that cer-tiorari jurisdiction is reserved for "orders granting leave to.plead punitive damages *520 claims when the trial court has failed to comply with the statute’s procedural requirements. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Flea Market, USA, Inc. v. Cohen
green
1 sentence2016Globe Newspaper Co., 658 So.2d at 519-20 . ■Although in Club Eden Roc, Inc. v. Fortune Cookie Restaurant, Inc., 490 So.2d 210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), this Court-enter-, tained a petition for certiorari to review-an order denying a motion to dismiss a claim for punitive damages based on Florida’s independent tort rule, this decision predates both section 768.72 and the Florida Supreme Court’s determination that cer-tiorari jurisdiction is reserved for "orders granting leave to.plead punitive damages *520 claims when the trial court has failed to comply with the statute’s procedural requirements. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Govoni v. State
neutral
2 sentences2015As then-Chief Judge Gross explained in his special concurrence in Govoni v. State, 17 So.3d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), quashed, 67 So.3d 1048 (Fla.2011), the procedure set forth in rule 3.190(b) is well-suited for motions to dismiss based on statutory immunity and is consistent with jurisprudence that requires the defendant, who is seeldng the immunity, to bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence: A motion to dismiss under rule 3.190(c)(4) is not well-suited to resolve a claim of “true immunity” from prosecution. 2015As then-Chief Judge Gross explained in his special concurrence in Govoni v. State, 17 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), quashed, 67 So. 3d 1048 (Fla. 2011), the procedure set forth in rule 3.190(b) is well-suited for motions to dismiss based on statutory immunity and is consistent with jurisprudence that requires the defendant, who is seeking the immunity, to bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence: A motion to dismiss under rule 3.190(c)(4) is not well-suited to resolve a claim of “true immunity” from prosecution. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Govoni v. State
neutral
2 sentences2015As then-Chief Judge Gross explained in his special concurrence in Govoni v. State, 17 So.3d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), quashed, 67 So.3d 1048 (Fla.2011), the procedure set forth in rule 3.190(b) is well-suited for motions to dismiss based on statutory immunity and is consistent with jurisprudence that requires the defendant, who is seeldng the immunity, to bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence: A motion to dismiss under rule 3.190(c)(4) is not well-suited to resolve a claim of “true immunity” from prosecution. 2015As then-Chief Judge Gross explained in his special concurrence in Govoni v. State, 17 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), quashed, 67 So. 3d 1048 (Fla. 2011), the procedure set forth in rule 3.190(b) is well-suited for motions to dismiss based on statutory immunity and is consistent with jurisprudence that requires the defendant, who is seeking the immunity, to bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence: A motion to dismiss under rule 3.190(c)(4) is not well-suited to resolve a claim of “true immunity” from prosecution. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Estate of Rocks v. McLaughlin Engineering Co.
green
1 sentence2014There, we held that “[t]he test for a motion to dismiss under rule 1.140(b)(6) [for failure to state a cause of action] is whether the pleader could prove any set of facts whatever in support of the claim.” Id. at 826 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| XL Specialty Ins. Co. v. Skystream, Inc. green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| LEMAY v. State neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Fordham green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Anthony v. Schmitt green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| America Online, Inc. v. GreatDeals. Net green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Thompson v. Thompson green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Grooms v. Garcia green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| State v. O'BRIEN green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Booker green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Stenza green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Milton green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| In re Albert green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Carter v. United States green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Fleming v. Moore green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Hricik green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Cruz v. State green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| City of Miami Beach v. Smith green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Jerry Chapman, Inc. v. Ivey green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Thomas v. PERSONAL REP. OF ESTATE OF DeLOACH green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Smith v. State green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Hicks green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. JTS green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Cummings v. State green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Evans green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Hicks v. State green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Rogers green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Swoveland green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.
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.