6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Eisenberggreen1 sentence2019Consistent with this rule, in Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Eisenberg, 220 So. 3d 517, 522-23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017), this court reversed an involuntary dismissal where the bank made a prima facie showing of the amounts due and owing, even though the portion of the payment history showing the date on which the borrower was alleged to have initially defaulted was not admitted into evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Morrow v. Stategreen1 sentence2017In the latter cases, however, in which the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence of the amount of the indebtedness, the courts have held that the proper remedy is to remand for an involuntary dismissal rather than to give the party making the error “an opportunity to retry their case.” Wolkoff, 153 So.3d at 283 (quoting Correa v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 118 So.3d 952, 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)). | 1 | 1 |
Blackshear v. Stategreen1 sentence1994See Blackshear v. State, 521 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 1988); Parrish ; Floyd v. State, 511 So.2d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scott v. State
green
1 sentence2019In cases with no evidence of the amount of indebtedness, courts have “remand[ed] for an involuntary dismissal rather than . . . give the party making the error an opportunity to retry its case.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Wolkoff v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017In the latter cases, however, in which the plaintiff failed to offer any evidence of the amount of the indebtedness, the courts have held that the proper remedy is to remand for an involuntary dismissal rather than to give the party making the error “an opportunity to retry their case.” Wolkoff, 153 So.3d at 283 (quoting Correa v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 118 So.3d 952, 956 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
McNeil v. Kingrey
green
2 sentences2006McNeil v. Kingrey, 237 Va. 400 , 377 S.E.2d 430 (1989); Clatterbuck v. Clore, 130 Va. 113 , 107 S.E. 669 (1921). 2006McNeil v. Kingrey, 237 Va. 400 , 377 S.E.2d 430 (1989); Clatterbuck v. Clore, 130 Va. 113 , 107 S.E. 669 (1921). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Clatterbuck v. Clore
green
2 sentences2006McNeil v. Kingrey, 237 Va. 400 , 377 S.E.2d 430 (1989); Clatterbuck v. Clore, 130 Va. 113 , 107 S.E. 669 (1921). 2006McNeil v. Kingrey, 237 Va. 400 , 377 S.E.2d 430 (1989); Clatterbuck v. Clore, 130 Va. 113 , 107 S.E. 669 (1921). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Floyd v. State
green
1 sentence1994See Blackshear v. State, 521 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 1988); Parrish ; Floyd v. State, 511 So.2d 762 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Anderson v. State
green
1 sentence1988Anderson v. State, 463 So.2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), rev. denied, 475 So.2d 693 (Fla. 1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Murphy v. Florida
green
2 sentences1985When pretrial publicity is invoked as the basis for an allegation of essential unfairness in the trial of a criminal case, the party making the claim has “the burden of showing essential unfairness.” Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 , 95 S.Ct. 2031 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). 1985When pretrial publicity is invoked as the basis for an allegation of essential unfairness in the trial of a criminal case, the party making the claim has “the burden of showing essential unfairness.” Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 , 95 S.Ct. 2031 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.