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 1979–1998 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 |
|---|---|---|
Paul v. Blakegreen2 sentences1983We adhere to these rules today because they are based on long-established precedent and seem both reasonable and fair. 376 So.2d at 259-60 . 1981The rationale for the rule was *1122 recently restated in Paul v. Blake, 376 So.2d 256, 259 (Fla.3d DCA 1979): This rule is based on the sound policy ground that without a special injury standing requirement, the courts would in all likelihood be faced with a great number of frivolous lawsuits filed by disgruntled taxpayers who, along with much of the taxpaying public these days, are not entirely pleased with certain of the taxing and spending decisions of their elective representatives. | 1 | 2 |
McBride v. Overstreetgreen1 sentence1991See McBride v. Overstreet, 89 So.2d 672 (Fla.1956). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Florida Chautauqua Ass'n
green
1 sentence1998In Brown v. Florida Chautauqua Ass'n, 59 Fla. 447 , 52 So. 802 (1910), the court explained the reasoning underlying the special injury standing rule: In order to secure an efficient administration of the law for the benefit of the public and to avoid the evil of many suits to accomplish one purpose, public wrongs are redressed at the suit of proper officials, and individuals are not permitted to maintain separate judicial proceedings to redress *1233 a wrong that is public in its nature unless the individual suffers or is threatened with some special, particular, or peculiar injury growing out | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Glatstein v. City of Miami
green
1 sentence1983The subsequent case of Glatstein v. City of Miami, 399 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), can only be explained if it be assumed that the standing question was never raised. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
United States Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc.
green
1 sentence1982The department further argues that we should adopt the special injury standing rule expressed in United States Steel Corp. v. Save Sand Key, Inc., 303 So.2d 9 (Fla. 1974), which has been applied in public nuisance, zoning, and taxpayer cases, when construing the standing requirements of section 120.56(1). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Department of Administration v. Horne
green
1 sentence1979Department of Administration v. Horne, 269 So.2d 659 (Fla. 1972); Rickman v. Whitehurst, 73 Fla. 152 , 74 So. 205 (1917). [2] This rule is based on the sound policy ground that without a special injury standing requirement, the courts would in all likelihood be faced with a great number of frivolous lawsuits filed by disgruntled taxpayers who, along with much of the taxpaying public these days, are not entirely pleased with certain of the taxing and spending decisions of their elective representatives. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Rickman v. Whitehurst
green
2 sentences1979Department of Administration v. Horne, 269 So.2d 659 (Fla. 1972); Rickman v. Whitehurst, 73 Fla. 152 , 74 So. 205 (1917). [2] This rule is based on the sound policy ground that without a special injury standing requirement, the courts would in all likelihood be faced with a great number of frivolous lawsuits filed by disgruntled taxpayers who, along with much of the taxpaying public these days, are not entirely pleased with certain of the taxing and spending decisions of their elective representatives. 1979Department of Administration v. Horne, 269 So.2d 659 (Fla. 1972); Rickman v. Whitehurst, 73 Fla. 152 , 74 So. 205 (1917). [2] This rule is based on the sound policy ground that without a special injury standing requirement, the courts would in all likelihood be faced with a great number of frivolous lawsuits filed by disgruntled taxpayers who, along with much of the taxpaying public these days, are not entirely pleased with certain of the taxing and spending decisions of their elective representatives. | 1 | 1979–1979 |