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 1986–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Florida Carry, Inc. v. University of Floridagreen1 sentence2018See UF, 180 So. 3d at 142 . | 1 | 1 |
McMillian v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUEgreen1 sentence2006"Prior to [enactment of section 61.30(17)], child support could be made retroactive to the date of the child's birth, without regard to the intervening years between the date of the child's birth and [any prior] determination that such support was due." McMillian, 746 So.2d at 1236-37 ("Because the amendment to section 61.30(17) limits a child's right to past parental support, the amendment is primarily substantive in nature and thus may not receive [or should not be construed to have] retroactive application."). | 1 | 1 |
Gore v. Peckgreen1 sentence2006Contra Gore v. Peck, 800 So.2d 273, 274-75 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (enforcing two-year limitation without analysis, but stating: "This court, and others, have adhered to the often-stated principle that . . . the mere passage of time . . . [does not] excuse[] a parent from child support obligations."). | 1 | 1 |
Voelker v. Combined Ins. Co. of Americagreen2 sentences1990In Voelker v. Combined Insurance Co. of America, 73 So.2d 403 (Fla.1954) the supreme court noted an important exception to the often-stated rule against laying inference upon inference: It is our considered judgment that when an inference ... is inescapable, that is to say when no contrary reasonable inference may be indulged, such inference is elevated for the purpose of further inference to the dignity of an established fact. 1990Id. at 407 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
DEPT. OF PROF. REG., BD. OF MEDICAL v. Durranigreen1 sentence1986“An agency’s construction of a statute is entitled to great weight and is not to be overturned unless clearly erroneous." Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners v. Durrani, 455 So.2d 515, 517 (Fla 1st DCA 1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Golden v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2001Dep't of Revenue v. Ortega, 682 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Golden v. Lewis, 647 So.2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Lemaster, 596 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); E.Z.P. v. H.P., Jr., 756 So.2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Sandidge, 651 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Johns v. Richards, 717 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Cartee v. Carswell, 425 So.2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
STATE, DHRS v. Lemaster
green
1 sentence2001Dep't of Revenue v. Ortega, 682 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Golden v. Lewis, 647 So.2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Lemaster, 596 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); E.Z.P. v. H.P., Jr., 756 So.2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Sandidge, 651 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Johns v. Richards, 717 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Cartee v. Carswell, 425 So.2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Cartee v. Carswell
green
1 sentence2001Dep't of Revenue v. Ortega, 682 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Golden v. Lewis, 647 So.2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Lemaster, 596 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); E.Z.P. v. H.P., Jr., 756 So.2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Sandidge, 651 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Johns v. Richards, 717 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Cartee v. Carswell, 425 So.2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State Dept. of Revenue v. Ortega
green
1 sentence2001Dep't of Revenue v. Ortega, 682 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Golden v. Lewis, 647 So.2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Lemaster, 596 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); E.Z.P. v. H.P., Jr., 756 So.2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Sandidge, 651 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Johns v. Richards, 717 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Cartee v. Carswell, 425 So.2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Johns v. Richards
green
1 sentence2001Dep't of Revenue v. Ortega, 682 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Golden v. Lewis, 647 So.2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Lemaster, 596 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); E.Z.P. v. H.P., Jr., 756 So.2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Sandidge, 651 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Johns v. Richards, 717 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Cartee v. Carswell, 425 So.2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Ezp v. Hp, Jr.
green
1 sentence2001Dep't of Revenue v. Ortega, 682 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Golden v. Lewis, 647 So.2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Lemaster, 596 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); E.Z.P. v. H.P., Jr., 756 So.2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Sandidge, 651 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Johns v. Richards, 717 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Cartee v. Carswell, 425 So.2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
STATE, DEPT. OF HRS v. Sandidge
green
1 sentence2001Dep't of Revenue v. Ortega, 682 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Golden v. Lewis, 647 So.2d 979 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Lemaster, 596 So.2d 1117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); E.Z.P. v. H.P., Jr., 756 So.2d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Dep't of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Sandidge, 651 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Johns v. Richards, 717 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Cartee v. Carswell, 425 So.2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Sharp v. Sharp
green
1 sentence1990Sharp v Sharp, 473 A.2d at 506 ; In Re: Marriage of Smith, 114 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In Re Marriage of Smith
green
1 sentence1990Sharp v Sharp, 473 A.2d at 506 ; In Re: Marriage of Smith, 114 Ill. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.