reasonable belief claim (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

reasonable belief claim in Florida

6 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1967–2026 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State Ex Rel. Ard v. Shelbygreen
fladistctapp · 1957 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997Ard v. Shelby, 97 So.2d 631, 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957), this court said "that upon expiration of the probationary period the court is divested of all jurisdiction over the person of the probationer unless in the meantime the processes of the court have been set in motion for revocation or modification of the probation pursuant to Section 948.06, F.S." At the time Ard was written, "the processes ... for revocation or modification of probation pursuant to Section 948.06, F.S." could be commenced either by arrest without a warrant, or by arrest pursuant to a warrant issued by a committing magistrat

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Hernandez v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. green
flsd · 2014
2 sentences

2024More recently, the Southern District relied upon Aery for the reasonable belief standard in Hernandez v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 11 F.Supp.3d 1177 (S.D.Fla.2014).

2015More recently, the Southern District relied upon Aery for the reasonable belief standard in Hernandez v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 11 F.Supp.3d 1177 (S.D.Fla.2014).

22015–2024
State v. Hebert green
fladistctapp · 2009
1 sentence

2026As explained in Hebert, the officer need only possess a reasonable belief that a violation has occurred. 8 So. 3d at 395 .

12026–2026
Wright v. Yurko green
fladistctapp · 1984
1 sentence

2005Wright, 446 So.2d at 1166 .

12005–2005
Kinsey v. Thompson green
illappct · 1963
1 sentence

1967Kinsey v. Thompson, 1963, 44 Ill.

11967–1967
Davis v. Evans green
fladistctapp · 1961
1 sentence

1967Such conduct, if proven, works an estoppel under the principle of "One who is silent when he ought to speak will not be heard to speak when he ought to be silent." Davis v. Evans, supra. To induce in Plaintiff a reasonable belief that his claim will be settled, and to continue negotiations even after the expiration of the limitations period may well constitute a waiver or estoppel to the defense of the Statute of Limitations.

11967–1967

Where else courts name it

IL 35 (1970–2020) CA 19 (1981–2025) WA 16 (1985–2025) PA 15 (1982–2025) NY 11 (1966–2025) MO 10 (1981–2024) RI 9 (1976–2017) OH 8 (1993–2026) OK 7 (1987–2020) IN 7 (1980–2015) GA 6 (1981–2025) FL 6 (1967–2026) CO 6 (1989–2025) TX 6 (2000–2024) NJ 6 (1996–2026) ID 5 (1987–2019) MD 3 (1999–2020) NV 3 (2015–2015) AZ 3 (1976–2018) CT 3 (1997–2023) DC 3 (1957–2021) AK 2 (1979–1992) NM 2 (1986–1995) WI 2 (2014–2015) NE 2 (1992–2009) WV 2 (1985–1999) UT 2 (2020–2020) KS 2 (2006–2018) TN 2 (2001–2007)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check