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 3 courts 1953–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sewellgreen1 sentence2002In State v. Sewell, 487 S.W.2d 716, 717 (Tex. 1972), the members of a local grievance committee sought mandamus to command a district judge to vacate an order that temporarily enjoined the grievance committee from concluding a hearing on matters before the committee which had been previously considered by the committee at two earlier hearings. | 1 | 1 |
Burleigh House Condominium, Inc. v. Buchwaldgreen1 sentence1982Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Fisher, 58 Fla. 377, 386 , 50 So. 504 , 507 (1909); Burleigh House Condominium, Inc. v. Buchwald, 368 So.2d 1316, 1321 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 379 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1979). | 1 | 1 |
Prall v. Prallgreen2 sentences1959As shown by Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496 , 50 So. 867 , 870, 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 577, a determination of a cause of action charged in both suits "is conclusive in the second suit as to every question that was presented or might have been presented and determined in the first suit." But the Prall case also shows that as to other causes of action (habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper and desertion) which were not involved in the first suit, the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable, and the first suit operates to bar the second, if at all, under the doctrine of estoppel by judg 1959As shown by Prall v. Prall, 58 Fla. 496 , 50 So. 867 , 870, 26 L.R.A.,N.S., 577, a determination of a cause of action charged in both suits "is conclusive in the second suit as to every question that was presented or might have been presented and determined in the first suit." But the Prall case also shows that as to other causes of action (habitual indulgence in violent and ungovernable temper and desertion) which were not involved in the first suit, the doctrine of res judicata is not applicable, and the first suit operates to bar the second, if at all, under the doctrine of estoppel by judg | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gordon v. Gordon
green
2 sentences1970If the degree of proof required in the first suit is greater than that required in the second, the cause of action cannot be held to be the same.” The authority cited by the Second District Court of Appeal for the foregoing test is the Supreme Court opinion in Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So. 2d 40 . 1953Neither can it be said that the plaintiffs in the case at bar are precluded under the doctrine of estoppel by judgment from prosecuting their present suit; for the rule is that where a later suit between the same parties as were involved in a prior litigation is upon a different claim or demand the judgment in the prior action will not operate as an estoppel except as to those matters "actually litigated and determined in the initial action", Gordon v. Gordon, Fla., 59 So.2d 40, 43 , or those "rights or questions * * * necessarily involved in the conclusions reached". | 2 | 1953–1970 |
Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Fisher
neutral
1 sentence1982Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Fisher, 58 Fla. 377, 386 , 50 So. 504 , 507 (1909); Burleigh House Condominium, Inc. v. Buchwald, 368 So.2d 1316, 1321 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 379 So.2d 203 (Fla. 1979). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Matthews v. Matthews
green
1 sentence1972Matthews v. Matthews, Fla.App. 1961, 133 So.2d 91, at p. 94 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.