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 1986–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Malzahn v. Malzahngreen2 sentences2016As this Court explained in Sperdute v. Household Realty Corp., 585 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), “the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to allow a party to ‘have a fair opportunity to contest’ the factual issues .... [I]t is reversible error for a trial court to deny a party an evidentiary hearing to which he is entitled.” Id. at 1169 (quoting Malzahn v. Malzahn, 541 So.2d 1359, 1360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)). 1991See Malzahn v. Malzahn, 541 So.2d 1359, 1360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). | 2 | 2 |
Castranova v. Authgreen1 sentence2021A trial is necessary to establish unliquidated damages.”); Castranova v. Auth, 590 So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (“Now it must be done in accordance with Rowe, by having a complete evidentiary hearing and entering an order with specific findings.”). | 1 | 1 |
Guyton v. Leonard Dewey Wilkinson Action Welding Supply, Inc.green1 sentence2021Since the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to allow a party to ‘have a fair opportunity to contest’ the factual issues, this purpose is not effectuated if a party is not allowed to testify.”); see also Newman v. Newman, 121 So. 3d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“[W]e agree that the trial court . . . erred in awarding fees and costs without conducting a hearing and giving Appellant the opportunity to dispute the reasonableness of the attorney’s hourly rate and time claimed.”); Guyton v. Leonard Dewey Wilkinson Action Welding Supply, Inc., 707 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“Appellant i | 1 | 1 |
Roggemann v. Boston Safe Deposit & Trust Co.green1 sentence2021Since the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to allow a party to ‘have a fair opportunity to contest’ the factual issues, this purpose is not effectuated if a party is not allowed to testify.”); see also Newman v. Newman, 121 So. 3d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“[W]e agree that the trial court . . . erred in awarding fees and costs without conducting a hearing and giving Appellant the opportunity to dispute the reasonableness of the attorney’s hourly rate and time claimed.”); Guyton v. Leonard Dewey Wilkinson Action Welding Supply, Inc., 707 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“Appellant i | 1 | 1 |
Newman v. Newmangreen1 sentence2021Since the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to allow a party to ‘have a fair opportunity to contest’ the factual issues, this purpose is not effectuated if a party is not allowed to testify.”); see also Newman v. Newman, 121 So. 3d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“[W]e agree that the trial court . . . erred in awarding fees and costs without conducting a hearing and giving Appellant the opportunity to dispute the reasonableness of the attorney’s hourly rate and time claimed.”); Guyton v. Leonard Dewey Wilkinson Action Welding Supply, Inc., 707 So. 2d 885, 886 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“Appellant i | 1 | 1 |
Carlson v. Carlsongreen1 sentence2005See Carlson v. Carlson, 671 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Wagner v. Wagner, 885 So.2d 488, 492-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Wagner v. Wagnergreen1 sentence2005See Carlson v. Carlson, 671 So.2d 280, 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Wagner v. Wagner, 885 So.2d 488, 492-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Robinson v. State, 707 So.2d 688, 691 (Fla. 1998) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burgess v. State
green
2 sentences2016As this Court explained in Sperdute v. Household Realty Corp., 585 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), “the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to allow a party to ‘have a fair opportunity to contest’ the factual issues .... [I]t is reversible error for a trial court to deny a party an evidentiary hearing to which he is entitled.” Id. at 1169 (quoting Malzahn v. Malzahn, 541 So.2d 1359, 1360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)). 2016As this Court explained in Sperdute v. Household Realty Corp., 585 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), “the purpose of an evidentiary hearing is to allow a party to ‘have a fair opportunity to contest’ the factual issues .... [I]t is reversible error for a trial court to deny a party an evidentiary hearing to which he is entitled.” Id. at 1169 (quoting Malzahn v. Malzahn, 541 So.2d 1359, 1360 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Pantori, Inc. v. Stephenson
green
1 sentence1986Pantori, 384 So.2d at 1359 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.