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 2 courts 1966–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kapila v. Atlantic Mortgage & Investment Corp.green2 sentences2016In reaching this conclusion, the Second District relied on Kapila v. Atlantic Mortgage & Investments Corp. (In re Halabi), 184 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir.1999), which held that section “701.02’s recording requirement is applicable only to (and enforceable by) competing creditors or subsequent bona fide purchasers of the mortgagee, not by the mortgagor.” Id. at 1338 (emphasis added in JP Morgan). 2016In reaching this conclusion, the Second District relied on Kapila v. Atlantic Mortgage & Investments Corp. (In re Halabi), 184 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir.1999), which held that section “701.02’s recording requirement is applicable only to (and enforceable by) competing creditors or subsequent bona fide purchasers of the mortgagee, not by the mortgagor.” Id. at 1338 (emphasis added in JP Morgan). | 1 | 1 |
Minnesota v. Cartergreen2 sentences2006In Rakas, 439 U.S. at 134 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , the United States Supreme Court stated that "[a] person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's . . . property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed." The High Court in Rawlings noted that after Rakas , the essential question to be resolved in determining whether *428 a defendant has standing to challenge an alleged unreasonable seizure and search is "whether governmental officials violated any legitimate expectation of privacy held 2006In Rakas, 439 U.S. at 134 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , the United States Supreme Court stated that "[a] person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's . . . property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed." The High Court in Rawlings noted that after Rakas , the essential question to be resolved in determining whether *428 a defendant has standing to challenge an alleged unreasonable seizure and search is "whether governmental officials violated any legitimate expectation of privacy held | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Antoine Johnsongreen1 sentence2006In Rakas, 439 U.S. at 134 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , the United States Supreme Court stated that "[a] person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's . . . property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed." The High Court in Rawlings noted that after Rakas , the essential question to be resolved in determining whether *428 a defendant has standing to challenge an alleged unreasonable seizure and search is "whether governmental officials violated any legitimate expectation of privacy held | 1 | 1 |
Rawlings v. Kentuckygreen2 sentences2006In Rakas, 439 U.S. at 134 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , the United States Supreme Court stated that "[a] person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's . . . property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed." The High Court in Rawlings noted that after Rakas , the essential question to be resolved in determining whether *428 a defendant has standing to challenge an alleged unreasonable seizure and search is "whether governmental officials violated any legitimate expectation of privacy held 2006In Rakas, 439 U.S. at 134 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , the United States Supreme Court stated that "[a] person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's . . . property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed." The High Court in Rawlings noted that after Rakas , the essential question to be resolved in determining whether *428 a defendant has standing to challenge an alleged unreasonable seizure and search is "whether governmental officials violated any legitimate expectation of privacy held | 1 | 1 |
Bolick v. Sperrygreen1 sentence1966See Bolick v. Sperry, Fla., 88 So.2d 495 , and cases therein cited. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
JP Morgan Chase v. New Millennial, LC
green
1 sentence2015As illustration, the court used the following example: “[I]f the original mortgagee assigns the mortgage to Entity A and Entity A fails to record that assignment, Entity A cannot claim priority over a latter assignee of the same mortgage (Entity B).” Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Thomas v. State
green
1 sentence2006A defendant in strikingly similar circumstances to Appellant's situation asserted standing in Thomas v. State, 596 So.2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Rakas v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2006In Rakas, 439 U.S. at 134 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , the United States Supreme Court stated that "[a] person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's . . . property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed." The High Court in Rawlings noted that after Rakas , the essential question to be resolved in determining whether *428 a defendant has standing to challenge an alleged unreasonable seizure and search is "whether governmental officials violated any legitimate expectation of privacy held 2006In Rakas, 439 U.S. at 134 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , the United States Supreme Court stated that "[a] person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's . . . property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed." The High Court in Rawlings noted that after Rakas , the essential question to be resolved in determining whether *428 a defendant has standing to challenge an alleged unreasonable seizure and search is "whether governmental officials violated any legitimate expectation of privacy held | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Prangler v. State
green
1 sentence1986In Prangler v. State, 470 So.2d 105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), the defendant appealed from the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1983Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 1983Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.