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 1913–1939 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence1913See Johnson v. State, 53 Fla. 42 , 43 South. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Greenblatt v. J. R. Bissell Dry Goods Co.
neutral
2 sentences1939Bissell Dry Goods Co., 85 Fla. 83 , 95 Sou. 302 , it was held: “A motion for a new trial and a ruling thereon with an exception duly taken are necessary to question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict that has been found, but such a motion is not essential in presenting to the appellate court an assignment of error on a charge directing a verdict, where the charge directing the verdict is duly excepted to when given, and such charge and the exception thereto are properly authenticated to the appellate court.” The plaintiff in error contends that errors were made by the court b 1939Bissell Dry Goods Co., 85 Fla. 83 , 95 Sou. 302 , it was held: “A motion for a new trial and a ruling thereon with an exception duly taken are necessary to question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a verdict that has been found, but such a motion is not essential in presenting to the appellate court an assignment of error on a charge directing a verdict, where the charge directing the verdict is duly excepted to when given, and such charge and the exception thereto are properly authenticated to the appellate court.” The plaintiff in error contends that errors were made by the court b | 2 | 1936–1939 |
Seaver v. Merrill-Stevens Shipbuilding Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1936Rep. 354 ; Greenblatt v. Bissell Dry Goods Co., 85 Fla. 83 , 95 South. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Osceola Fertilizer Co. v. Beville
green
2 sentences1936“A motion for new trial and a ruling thereon with exception duly taken are necessary to question the sufficiency of all the evidence to sustain the verdict.” Osceola Fertilizer Co. v. Beville, 86 Fla. 479 , text 483, 98 South. 1936“A motion for new trial and a ruling thereon with exception duly taken are necessary to question the sufficiency of all the evidence to sustain the verdict.” Osceola Fertilizer Co. v. Beville, 86 Fla. 479 , text 483, 98 South. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Revell v. State
neutral
2 sentences1924Revell v. State, 85 Fla. 402 , 96 South. 1924Revell v. State, 85 Fla. 402 , 96 South. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Gilbert v. State
green
1 sentence1923Gilbert v. State, 58 Fla. 50 , 50 South. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Palmore v. State
green
2 sentences1919Palmore v. State, 65 Fla. 539 , 62 South. 1919Palmore v. State, 65 Fla. 539 , 62 South. | 1 | 1919–1919 |
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.