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 1941–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boynton v. Burglassgreen1 sentence2026See generally Boynton v. Burglass, 590 So. 2d 446, 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) ("Under the common law, a person had no duty to control the conduct of another or to warn those placed in danger by such conduct; however, an exception to that general rule can arise when there is a special relationship between the defendant and the person whose behavior needs to be controlled or the person who is a foreseeable victim of that conduct."). | 1 | 1 |
Rodriguez-Diaz v. Abategreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., Rodriguez-Diaz v. Abate, 613 So. 2d 515, 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (“An order prohibiting a [layperson] from representing [himself or herself] is an appropriate remedy where the litigant, in a series of cases, has upset and interfered with the normal procedures of the court by filing immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent pleadings, and has failed to comply with court rules.”). | 1 | 1 |
Florida Power & Light Co. v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2020An exception to that general rule is that: ‘A person who is having work done on his premises by an independent contractor, and has actual or constructive knowledge of latent or potential dangers on the premises, owes a duty to give warning of, or use ordinary care to furnish protection against, such dangers to employees of the contractor and subcontractor who are without actual or constructive notice of the dangers.’ Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Robinson, 68 So. 2d 406, 411 (Fla. 1953) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Rice v. Florida Power & Light Co.green1 sentence2020However, “[a]n ‘owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own sense, and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger.’” Rice v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 363 So. 2d 834, 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), citing Hall v. Holland, 47 So. 2d 889, 891-92 (Fla. 1950). | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Hollandgreen1 sentence2020However, “[a]n ‘owner is entitled to assume that the invitee will perceive that which would be obvious to him upon the ordinary use of his own sense, and is not required to give the invitee notice or warning of an obvious danger.’” Rice v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 363 So. 2d 834, 839 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), citing Hall v. Holland, 47 So. 2d 889, 891-92 (Fla. 1950). | 1 | 1 |
Nairn v. Stategreen1 sentence2015An exception to that general rule is “ ‘when the error is apparent on the face of the record, which is rarely the case.’ ” Naim v. State, 978 So.2d 268, 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Desire v. State, 928 So.2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
Desire v. Stategreen1 sentence2015An exception to that general rule is “ ‘when the error is apparent on the face of the record, which is rarely the case.’ ” Naim v. State, 978 So.2d 268, 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Desire v. State, 928 So.2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
Fischer v. Metcalfgreen1 sentence1991See Fischer v. Metcalf, 543 So.2d 785 , 787 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Department of Health & Rehab. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adams v. Saunders
green
2 sentences1941Rich v. Hallman, 106 Fla. 348 , 143 So. 292 ; Peacock v. DuBois, 90 Fla. 162 , 105 So. 32 ; Adams v. Saunders et al., 139 Fla. 730 , 191 So. 312 . 1941Rich v. Hallman, 106 Fla. 348 , 143 So. 292 ; Peacock v. DuBois, 90 Fla. 162 , 105 So. 32 ; Adams v. Saunders et al., 139 Fla. 730 , 191 So. 312 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Peacock v. Dubois
green
1 sentence1941Rich v. Hallman, 106 Fla. 348 , 143 So. 292 ; Peacock v. DuBois, 90 Fla. 162 , 105 So. 32 ; Adams v. Saunders et al., 139 Fla. 730 , 191 So. 312 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Rich v. Hallman
green
2 sentences1941Rich v. Hallman, 106 Fla. 348 , 143 So. 292 ; Peacock v. DuBois, 90 Fla. 162 , 105 So. 32 ; Adams v. Saunders et al., 139 Fla. 730 , 191 So. 312 . 1941Rich v. Hallman, 106 Fla. 348 , 143 So. 292 ; Peacock v. DuBois, 90 Fla. 162 , 105 So. 32 ; Adams v. Saunders et al., 139 Fla. 730 , 191 So. 312 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
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.