6 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ross v. Goregreen2 sentences2023Cf. Ross v. Gore, 48 So. 2d 412, 415 (Fla. 1950) ("The public has an interest in the free dissemination of news. . . . 2019Correction, apology, or retraction by newspaper or broadcast station (1) If it appears upon the trial that said article or broadcast was published in good faith; that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts; that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements in said article or broadcast were true; and that, within the period of time specified in subsection (2), a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction was, in the case of a newspaper or periodical, published in the same editions or corresponding issues of the newspaper or periodical in which said articl | 1 | 3 |
Mazur v. Ospina Barayagreen1 sentence2025See McQueen, 377 So. 3d at 178 ("[I]t suffices to observe that the media defense under section 7[7]0.01 is not typically available for 'hyperbole and mental impressions'; rather, the statute serves to protect the dissemination of news and news commentary."); Mazur v. Ospina Baraya, 275 So. 3d 812, 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("To determine whether a defendant's publication falls 'within the purview of the prescribed "other medium" entitled to presuit notice, we . . . [must] determine whether the [defendant's publication] is operated to further the free dissemination of information or disinterested | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See McQueen, 377 So. 3d at 178 ("[I]t suffices to observe that the media defense under section 7[7]0.01 is not typically available for 'hyperbole and mental impressions'; rather, the statute serves to protect the dissemination of news and news commentary."); Mazur v. Ospina Baraya, 275 So. 3d 812, 817 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("To determine whether a defendant's publication falls 'within the purview of the prescribed "other medium" entitled to presuit notice, we . . . [must] determine whether the [defendant's publication] is operated to further the free dissemination of information or disinterested | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bridges v. Williamson
green
2 sentences2019Correction, apology, or retraction by newspaper or broadcast station (1) If it appears upon the trial that said article or broadcast was published in good faith; that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts; that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements in said article or broadcast were true; and that, within the period of time specified in subsection (2), a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction was, in the case of a newspaper or periodical, published in the same editions or corresponding issues of the newspaper or periodical in which said articl 2019Correction, apology, or retraction by newspaper or broadcast station (1) If it appears upon the trial that said article or broadcast was published in good faith; that its falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts; that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the statements in said article or broadcast were true; and that, within the period of time specified in subsection (2), a full and fair correction, apology, or retraction was, in the case of a newspaper or periodical, published in the same editions or corresponding issues of the newspaper or periodical in which said articl | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Florida Freedom Newspapers v. McCrary
green
1 sentence1989The trial court did not have the benefit of the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court in Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. McCrary, 520 So.2d 32 (Fla. 1988). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Miami Herald Pub. Co. v. State
green
1 sentence1985At the hearing, the movant must be required to present evidence sufficient to overcome his burden of meeting each prong of the three-part test established in Miami Herald v. Lewis [ 426 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1982)] and Miami Herald v. State [ 363 So.2d 603 (Fla.App. 1978)]. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Lewis
green
1 sentence1985At the hearing, the movant must be required to present evidence sufficient to overcome his burden of meeting each prong of the three-part test established in Miami Herald v. Lewis [ 426 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1982)] and Miami Herald v. State [ 363 So.2d 603 (Fla.App. 1978)]. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.