6 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pawley v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2024See Petrovsky v. HSBC Bank, USA, 185 So. 3d 700, 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (explaining that by “requesting that the court hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of attorney’s fees, appellants preserved their right to a hearing”); Dawson v. Hernandez, 300 So. 3d 248 , 253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (holding that the defendant preserved his objection to the lack of an evidentiary hearing by “filing various post judgment motions to reconsider, rehear, set aside, and vacate the judgments”). | 1 | 1 |
Estes v. Rodingreen1 sentence2023In most cases, however, “the affidavits can be harmonized.” Estes v. Rodin, 259 So. 3d 183, 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018). 8 Here, neither party requested an evidentiary hearing, raised the lack of an evidentiary hearing as a ground for error, or contended an actual conflict existed in the specific facts presented by the parties. | 1 | 1 |
Harutyun Hovannesian v. Pennymac Corp. and Teni Hovannesiangreen1 sentence2017We remand for further proceedings “to properly establish the correct amount due and owing.” Hovannesian v. PennyMac Corp., 190 So.3d 681, 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); see also Tervil v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 4D15-2561 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 30, 2016) (holding that the lack of an evidentiary hearing on the issue of attorneys’ fees requires reversal for the hearing to occur). | 1 | 1 |
In Re AWP, Jr.green1 sentence2013Id. at 136 (“Because the father was denied due process, we grant certiorari relief and quash the Order Approving Educational Plans.”); see Dep’t of Children & Families v. W.H., 109 So.3d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“The lack of notice and the lack of an evidentiary hearing on reunification violated the Department’s right to due process”). | 1 | 1 |
State, Department of Children & Families v. Interest of B.D.green1 sentence2013State, Dep’t of Children & Families v. B.D., 102 So.3d 707, 710 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (quashing an order reopening a dependency proceeding where the trial court failed to make specific, required findings of fact and where the court failed to allow the presentation of evidence); Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families v. R. | 1 | 1 |
Department of Children & Families v. W.H.green1 sentence2013Id. at 136 (“Because the father was denied due process, we grant certiorari relief and quash the Order Approving Educational Plans.”); see Dep’t of Children & Families v. W.H., 109 So.3d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“The lack of notice and the lack of an evidentiary hearing on reunification violated the Department’s right to due process”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chaddick v. Monopoli
green
1 sentence1999Additionally, the trial judge made notes of the conversations with the out-of-state judge that were part of the record in that case.'" Id. (quoting Chaddick, 714 So.2d at 1012 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Johns v. Johns
neutral
1 sentence1999Additionally, the trial judge made notes of the conversations with the out-of-state judge that were part of the record in that case.'" Id. (quoting Chaddick, 714 So.2d at 1012 ). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.