6 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lease Fin. v. Nat. Commuter Airlinesgreen2 sentences2021Corp. v. Nat’l Commuter Airlines, Inc., 462 So. 2d 564, 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (“Thus, [the defendant] can also take advantage of any remedies available under . . . general tort law as it exists in this state.”). 2011Corp. v. Nat’l Commuter Airlines, Inc., 462 So.2d 564, 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (“Thus, [the defendant] can also take advantage of any remedies available under ... general tort law as it exists in this state.”). | 2 | 2 |
Gill v. Shivelygreen2 sentences2012Gill v. Shively, 320 So.2d 415, 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). 2004Gill v. Shively, 320 So.2d 415, 416 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). | 2 | 2 |
Rem-Con Communications, Inc. v. United American Bank of Memphisgreen2 sentences2021Bank of Memphis, 668 So. 2d 320 , 321–22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing a summary judgment against a defendant on a counterclaim for wrongful repossession/conversion to a replevin claim); Lease Fin. 2011Bank of Memphis, 668 So.2d 320, 321-22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (reversing a summary judgment against a defendant on a counterclaim for wrongful repossession/conversion to a replevin claim); Lease Fin. | 1 | 2 |
Martinique Condominiums, Inc. v. Shortgreen1 sentence2020See Martinique Condos., 230 So. 3d at 1270 ; see also Variety Children’s Hosp. v. Mt. | 1 | 1 |
Gilbert v. Florida Power & Light Co.green1 sentence2014Therefore, the doctrines of collateral estoppel, res judicata, and merger do not preclude Olesh from pursuing his claims as to the in rent possessory component of the replevin claim in count IV and the equitable claim for injunctive relief in count V of his complaint. 1 See Gilbert v. Florida Power & Light Co., 981 So.2d 609, 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (holding that under the rule against splitting a cause of action, a new claim for damages is not barred if the underlying cause of action had not accrued at the time of filing the previous lawsuit). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.