6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
GEL Corp. v. Dept. of Environmental Protectiongreen1 sentence2024Corp., 875 So. 2d at 1259, 1265 (remanding case for ALJ to hold a hearing on fees). | 1 | 1 |
Bacon v. Stategreen1 sentence2024Bd., 990 So. 2d 1124, 1130 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (explaining “[a]t the very least, due process requires the ALJ to hold a hearing to afford the parties an 2 opportunity to present evidence”); see also G.E.L. | 1 | 1 |
Depart v. MacRigreen1 sentence2005See Depart, 902 So.2d 271 (focusing on the absence of language in the statute conferring jurisdiction upon the ALJ to rule on claims that a healthcare provider is immune from a civil action pursuant to section 766.303(2) in thus concluding that the ALJ is without such jurisdiction). | 1 | 1 |
Galen of Florida, Inc. v. Braniffgreen1 sentence2004The ALJ, however, properly found that "[a]s the proponent of the issue, the burden rested on the health care providers to demonstrate, more likely than not, that the notice provisions of the Plan were satisfied." See Galen, 696 So.2d at 311 ("[T]he assertion of NICA exclusivity is an affirmative defense."). | 1 | 1 |
Hechtman v. Nations Title Ins. of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2004See, e.g., Hechtman v. Nations Title Ins. of N.Y., 840 So.2d 993, 996 (Fla.2003) ("It is an elementary principle of statutory construction that significance and effect must be given to every word, phrase, sentence, and part of the statute if possible, and words in a statute should not be construed as mere surplusage."); State v. Goode, 830 So.2d 817, 824 (Fla.2002) ("[A] basic rule of statutory construction provides that the Legislature does not intend to enact useless provisions, and courts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless.") Memorial urges that any error | 1 | 1 |
State v. Goodegreen1 sentence2004See, e.g., Hechtman v. Nations Title Ins. of N.Y., 840 So.2d 993, 996 (Fla.2003) ("It is an elementary principle of statutory construction that significance and effect must be given to every word, phrase, sentence, and part of the statute if possible, and words in a statute should not be construed as mere surplusage."); State v. Goode, 830 So.2d 817, 824 (Fla.2002) ("[A] basic rule of statutory construction provides that the Legislature does not intend to enact useless provisions, and courts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless.") Memorial urges that any error | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Houk v. PennyMac Corp.
green
1 sentence2022Co. v. Estrada, 276 So. 3d 905 , 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (reversing the trial court’s order striking affirmative defense where the trial court’s reasoning was evident in the order); Houk v. PennyMac Corp., 210 So. 3d 726 , 730–31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (holding that absence of transcript was not critical to the determination of appeal where record was sufficient to determine whether the trial court had properly entered summary judgment). 3 3 We also note that the ALJ held the hearing on the motion a matter of hours after Appellee filed the motion in limine, and according to the Department, the hear | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Orhs v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological
green
2 sentences2011Id. at 481-32 . 2011Id. at 431-32 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Mb v. Apd
green
2 sentences2010The ALJ hearing and its result occurred before our decision in M.B. v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 13 So.3d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), which dealt with the same issues as to 2007. 2010The ALJ hearing and its result occurred before our decision in M.B. v. Agency for Persons with Disabilities, 13 So.3d 509 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009), which dealt with the same issues as to 2007. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.