6 Florida opinions name it 4 courts 1962–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gifford v. Galaxie Homes of Tampa, Inc.green2 sentences2008The court used Gifford v. Galaxie Homes of Tampa, Inc., 223 So.2d 108 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), as an illustration of this principle. 1984Although the expert may testify to whether certain benefits were received by the municipality, and may, within his expertise, testify to the importance of potential or unquantified benefits, he is precluded from opining whether a particular benefit is or is not "real and substantial" within the meaning of Briley, Wild An illustration of this principle is found in Gifford v. Galaxie Homes, Inc., 223 So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lion Gables Realty Ltd. v. Randall Mechanical, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012A traditional illustration of waiver of arbitration through the propounding of discovery occurred in Lion Gables Realty Ltd. v. Randall Mechanical, Inc., 65 So.3d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Medlin
green
1 sentence2002He raises three issues: (1) harmful error based on prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire, opening argument, and closing argument; (2) misinstruction of the jury on the elements of the offense of delivery of cocaine; and (3) an alleged violation of the dictates of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), in the trial judge's sentencing him as a habitual offender. [2] Based on the supreme court's recent clarification of Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996), and *668 State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla.1973), in McMillon v. State, 813 So.2d 56 , (F | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Chicone v. State
red
1 sentence2002He raises three issues: (1) harmful error based on prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire, opening argument, and closing argument; (2) misinstruction of the jury on the elements of the offense of delivery of cocaine; and (3) an alleged violation of the dictates of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), in the trial judge's sentencing him as a habitual offender. [2] Based on the supreme court's recent clarification of Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996), and *668 State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla.1973), in McMillon v. State, 813 So.2d 56 , (F | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2002He raises three issues: (1) harmful error based on prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire, opening argument, and closing argument; (2) misinstruction of the jury on the elements of the offense of delivery of cocaine; and (3) an alleged violation of the dictates of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), in the trial judge's sentencing him as a habitual offender. [2] Based on the supreme court's recent clarification of Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996), and *668 State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla.1973), in McMillon v. State, 813 So.2d 56 , (F 2002He raises three issues: (1) harmful error based on prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire, opening argument, and closing argument; (2) misinstruction of the jury on the elements of the offense of delivery of cocaine; and (3) an alleged violation of the dictates of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), in the trial judge's sentencing him as a habitual offender. [2] Based on the supreme court's recent clarification of Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996), and *668 State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla.1973), in McMillon v. State, 813 So.2d 56 , (F | 1 | 2002–2002 |
McMillon v. State
green
2 sentences2002He raises three issues: (1) harmful error based on prosecutorial misconduct during voir dire, opening argument, and closing argument; (2) misinstruction of the jury on the elements of the offense of delivery of cocaine; and (3) an alleged violation of the dictates of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), in the trial judge's sentencing him as a habitual offender. [2] Based on the supreme court's recent clarification of Chicone v. State, 684 So.2d 736 (Fla.1996), and *668 State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla.1973), in McMillon v. State, 813 So.2d 56 , (F 2002There is no dispute here that the facts upon which Mr. Grant was prosecuted showed actual, rather than constructive, possessionwhat the supreme court in Chicone referred to as "actual, personal possession." Id. at 739 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Newton
green
1 sentence1978State v. Newton, 328 So.2d 110 (La. 1976). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
City of Galveston v. Mexican Petroleum Corporation
neutral
1 sentence1962City of Galveston v. Mexican Petroleum Corp. 15 F.2d 208 .’ ” The language contained in that footnote was derived from the following language several times employed by Mr. Justice Cardozo — “The rule of ‘original package’ is not an ultimate principle, it is an illustration of a principle.” Whatever may be the significance of retaining in the “original package” goods that have been imported for sale, we are advised in the majority opinion of the Youngstown case, supra — “ . . . goods that have been so imported for use in manufacturing are not exempt from taxation, though not removed from the ‘o | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.