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 1 courts 1982–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Macar v. Macargreen1 sentence2023See Sanchez v. Sanchez, 285 So. 3d 969 , 971 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (“[M]otions filed under rule 12.540(b) are governed by the body of law applicable to rule 1.540(b)); Macaw v. Macaw, 803 So. 2d 707 , 709 n.4 (Fla. 2001) (“The relevant portions of rule 12.540 are substantively identical to [r]ule 1.540.”). 2Rule 12.610(c)(6), titled “Motion to Modify or Vacate Injunction,” permits a party to “move the court to modify or vacate an injunction at any time.” 2 improper denial of due process or conduct amounting to excusable neglect or mistake . . . . | 1 | 1 |
People's Trust Ins. Co. v. Garciagreen1 sentence2021Compare Garcia, 263 So. 3d at 234 (“[W]here an insurer has not wholly denied coverage, causation is an amount of loss issue for appraisal.”), and People’s Tr. | 1 | 1 |
CAREY-ALL TRANSPORT, INC. v. Newbygreen1 sentence2018However, the ambiguities that could render a proposal for settlement invalid are those that preclude the recipient from "fully evaluat[ing] its terms and conditions." Carey-All Transport, Inc. v. Newby, 989 So. 2d 1201, 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (quoting Nichols v. State Farm Mut., 851 So. 2d 742, 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Nichols v. State Farm Mut.green1 sentence2018However, the ambiguities that could render a proposal for settlement invalid are those that preclude the recipient from "fully evaluat[ing] its terms and conditions." Carey-All Transport, Inc. v. Newby, 989 So. 2d 1201, 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (quoting Nichols v. State Farm Mut., 851 So. 2d 742, 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Parkin v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Nobles, 422 U.S. at 233-34 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 (holding that “disclosure of the relevant portions of the defense investigator’s report would not impinge on the fundamental values protected by the Fifth Amendment”); Parkin v. State, 238 So.2d 817, 820 (Fla.1970) (“The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in history and principle seems to relate to protecting the accused from the process of extracting from his own lips against his will an admission of guilt.”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Noblesgreen2 sentences2013See Nobles, 422 U.S. at 233-34 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 (holding that “disclosure of the relevant portions of the defense investigator’s report would not impinge on the fundamental values protected by the Fifth Amendment”); Parkin v. State, 238 So.2d 817, 820 (Fla.1970) (“The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in history and principle seems to relate to protecting the accused from the process of extracting from his own lips against his will an admission of guilt.”). 2013See Nobles, 422 U.S. at 233-34 , 95 S.Ct. 2160 (holding that “disclosure of the relevant portions of the defense investigator’s report would not impinge on the fundamental values protected by the Fifth Amendment”); Parkin v. State, 238 So.2d 817, 820 (Fla.1970) (“The constitutional privilege against self-incrimination in history and principle seems to relate to protecting the accused from the process of extracting from his own lips against his will an admission of guilt.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Boatright v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
green
1 sentence2018"Simply stated, proposals for settlement are not subject to the service requirements of rule 2.516 because the proposals do not meet rule 1.080(a)'s threshold requirement that they be 'filed in the action.' " Id. at 965 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
FLORIDA DEPT., OF OFFENDER REHAB. v. Jerry
green
1 sentence1986The DOC responded by moving to dismiss for lack of standing, contending that because the $300.00 assessment had been collected in full and it was no longer imposing a lien on Moultrie’s inmate account, he had failed to show that the rule was having a continuing adverse effect on him as required by Department of Offender Rehabilitation v. Jerry, 353 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 359 So.2d 1215 (Fla.1978). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Rozier v. State
green
1 sentence1982In Rozier v. State, 402 So.2d 539 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), we held that the intent to commit a specific offense is an essential element of the crime of burglary. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.