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.
6 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Foreman v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Behavioral Healthcare Options, Inc. v. Charter Behavioral Health Sys. of Tampa Bay, Inc., 727 So.2d 1135, 1136 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding that the dismissal of the claims brought by a professional association against appellees was a final appealable order under rule 9.110(k) because no other counts remained in which the association was a party). | 1 | 1 |
Amend. to Fla. Rules of Appellate Proc.green1 sentence2009See Amendments to Fla. Rules of Appellate Procedure, 780 So.2d 834 (Fla.2000); see also Singleton v. Realty Land Invs., Inc., 5 So.3d 794, 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (dismissing an appeal, holding that circuit court order styled as “judgment by default” as to liability, but reserving the issue of damages, was not an appealable order under rule 9.130). | 1 | 1 |
Singleton v. REALTY LAND INVESTMENTS, INC.green1 sentence2009See Amendments to Fla. Rules of Appellate Procedure, 780 So.2d 834 (Fla.2000); see also Singleton v. Realty Land Invs., Inc., 5 So.3d 794, 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (dismissing an appeal, holding that circuit court order styled as “judgment by default” as to liability, but reserving the issue of damages, was not an appealable order under rule 9.130). | 1 | 1 |
Thurston v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Thurston v. State, 812 So.2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (holding that an order denying a motion for appointment of counsel is not an appealable order under rule 9.140). | 1 | 1 |
Naghtin v. Jones by and Through Jonesgreen2 sentences2002We agree with the court in Naghtin v. Jones, 680 So.2d 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), that an order refusing to enforce an alleged settlement agreement is not an appealable order under rule 9.130(a). 2002Nor, as the Naghtin court held, is an order denying enforcement of a settlement agreement reviewable by common law certiorari. 680 So.2d at 577 ("The case law is clear that `[c]ertiorari is not designed to serve as a writ of expediency and should not be granted merely to relieve the petitioners seeking the writ from the expense and inconvenience of a trial.'"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Savoie v. State
green
1 sentence2001We acknowledge that the supreme court in State v. Gaines, 770 So.2d 1221 (Fla.2000), questioned whether the Stevens analysis (and the supreme court’s dicta in Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308 (Fla.1982)) is in compliance with Rule 9.140(c), Fla.R.App. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Gaines
green
1 sentence2001We acknowledge that the supreme court in State v. Gaines, 770 So.2d 1221 (Fla.2000), questioned whether the Stevens analysis (and the supreme court’s dicta in Savoie v. State, 422 So.2d 308 (Fla.1982)) is in compliance with Rule 9.140(c), Fla.R.App. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Stevens
green
1 sentence2001We adopt the analysis in State v. Stevens, 563 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), and hold that the granting of a motion to suppress during a trial aborted by the granting of defendant’s motion for mistrial and the ordering of a new trial results in an appealable order under the rule. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Doctor's Hosp. of Hollywood, Inc. v. Madison
green
1 sentence1982Doctors Hospital of Hollywood, Inc. v. Madison, 411 So.2d 190 (Fla. 1982). [3] During the hearing on the motion to vacate, the following exchange took place: TWIN COAST'S COUNSEL: One of the things off the bat that we observed about the motion is that it's insufficient as a matter of law because they failed to offer to go to trial at once on the material issues and I cited three cases to that proposition. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.