43 Florida opinions name it 5 courts 1938–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coggin v. Barfieldgreen2 sentences2004"The true purpose of the entry of a default is to speed the cause thereby preventing a dilatory or procrastinating defendant from impeding the plaintiff in the establishment of his claim." Coggin v. Barfield, 150 Fla. 551 , 8 So.2d 9, 11 (Fla.1942). 2004"The true purpose of the entry of a default is to speed the cause thereby preventing a dilatory or procrastinating defendant from impeding the plaintiff in the establishment of his claim." Coggin v. Barfield, 150 Fla. 551 , 8 So.2d 9, 11 (Fla.1942). | 4 | 10 |
Johnson v. Presbyterian Homes of Synod of Fla., Inc.green2 sentences2004See Johnson v. Presbyterian Homes, 239 So.2d at 261 ; Silver Rose, 646 So.2d at 251 ; Rice v. State, 754 So.2d at 883 . 2000See Johnson v. Presbyterian Homes of Synod of Fla., Inc., 239 So.2d 256, 261 (Fla.1970). | 2 | 2 |
Rice v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See Johnson v. Presbyterian Homes, 239 So.2d at 261 ; Silver Rose, 646 So.2d at 251 ; Rice v. State, 754 So.2d at 883 . 2004I, § 3, Fla. Const.; see also Rice v. State, 754 So.2d 881, 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (recognizing that "when considering an establishment clause claim under Florida's constitution, a fourth consideration has been added by article I, section 3, of the Florida Constitution"). [6] Appellants cite this Court's decisions in Public Health Trust v. Wons, 541 So.2d 96 (Fla.1989), and In re Dubreuil 629 So.2d 819 (Fla.1993), for the proposition that the Florida Free Exercise Clause requires the state to show that it has a compelling interest in enacting neutral laws of general application. | 1 | 3 |
Silver Rose Entertain. v. Clay Countygreen2 sentences2004See Johnson v. Presbyterian Homes, 239 So.2d at 261 ; Silver Rose, 646 So.2d at 251 ; Rice v. State, 754 So.2d at 883 . 2000However, when considering an establishment clause claim under Florida's constitution, a fourth consideration has been added by article I, section 3, of the Florida Constitution: "The statute must not authorize the use of public moneys, directly or indirectly, in aid of any sectarian institution." Silver Rose Entertainment, Inc. v. Clay County, 646 So.2d 246, 251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 658 So.2d 992 (Fla.1995). | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Willow River Power Co.green1 sentence2026The first English precedent that fully enunciated the doctrine of riparian rights did not come until 1833 and relied heavily on the already decided American cases. . . . [I]t seems too much to conclude that there was a developed or coherent theory of riparian rights brought over from England by the colonists.” (citations omitted)); Florida v. Georgia, 585 U.S. 803, 816 (2018) (acknowledging the establishment of the principle of “reasonable use” (citing Tyler v. Wilkinson, 24 F. Cas. 472, 474 (C.C.D.R.I. 1827) (Story, J.))); United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499, 505 (1945) (“Th | 1 | 1 |
Florida v. Georgiagreen1 sentence2026The first English precedent that fully enunciated the doctrine of riparian rights did not come until 1833 and relied heavily on the already decided American cases. . . . [I]t seems too much to conclude that there was a developed or coherent theory of riparian rights brought over from England by the colonists.” (citations omitted)); Florida v. Georgia, 585 U.S. 803, 816 (2018) (acknowledging the establishment of the principle of “reasonable use” (citing Tyler v. Wilkinson, 24 F. Cas. 472, 474 (C.C.D.R.I. 1827) (Story, J.))); United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499, 505 (1945) (“Th | 1 | 1 |
Tyler v. Wilkinsongreen2 sentences2026The first English precedent that fully enunciated the doctrine of riparian rights did not come until 1833 and relied heavily on the already decided American cases. . . . [I]t seems too much to conclude that there was a developed or coherent theory of riparian rights brought over from England by the colonists.” (citations omitted)); Florida v. Georgia, 585 U.S. 803, 816 (2018) (acknowledging the establishment of the principle of “reasonable use” (citing Tyler v. Wilkinson, 24 F. Cas. 472, 474 (C.C.D.R.I. 1827) (Story, J.))); United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499, 505 (1945) (“Th 2026The first English precedent that fully enunciated the doctrine of riparian rights did not come until 1833 and relied heavily on the already decided American cases. . . . [I]t seems too much to conclude that there was a developed or coherent theory of riparian rights brought over from England by the colonists.” (citations omitted)); Florida v. Georgia, 585 U.S. 803, 816 (2018) (acknowledging the establishment of the principle of “reasonable use” (citing Tyler v. Wilkinson, 24 F. Cas. 472, 474 (C.C.D.R.I. 1827) (Story, J.))); United States v. Willow River Power Co., 324 U.S. 499, 505 (1945) (“Th | 1 | 1 |
Village of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp.green1 sentence2026Irrespective of its origin, Florida’s courts have adopted the reasonable-use rule, see, e.g., Vill. of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 371 So. 2d 663, 666 (Fla. 1979); Cason v. Fla. Power Co., 76 So. 535 , 536 (Fla. 1917), and applied it to a number of contexts, including non-navigable, privately- owned lake bottoms, see, e.g., Duval v. Thomas, 114 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1959); Taylor v. Tampa Coal Co., 46 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1950); Florio v. State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Finlator v. Powersgreen2 sentences2005Finlator v. Powers, 902 F.2d 1158, 1162-63 (4th Cir.1990). 2005Insofar as section 212.06(9), Florida Statutes (2003), exempts "religious publications, bibles, hymn books [and] prayer books," it, too, "contravenes the establishment clause under the reasoning of Texas Monthly, and violates the free press clause under the rationale of Arkansas Writers' Project. " Finlator, 902 F.2d at 1163 . | 1 | 1 |
Todd v. Stategreen2 sentences2004In Todd v. State, 643 So.2d 625, 628, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the court noted the three prongs under Lemon , and held that although there was some indirect benefit to religious organizations from the statute making it a felony to deface a church, synagogue, mosque or other place of worship, these incidental benefits are not unconstitutional under the United States or Florida Constitution. [38] The Florida Supreme Court in Johnson, as the majority correctly points out, analyzed the no-aid language as part of the Establishment Clause analysis of Article I, 3, consistent with federal constitut 2004In Todd v. State, 643 So.2d 625, 628, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), the court noted the three prongs under Lemon , and held that although there was some indirect benefit to religious organizations from the statute making it a felony to deface a church, synagogue, mosque or other place of worship, these incidental benefits are not unconstitutional under the United States or Florida Constitution. [38] The Florida Supreme Court in Johnson, as the majority correctly points out, analyzed the no-aid language as part of the Establishment Clause analysis of Article I, 3, consistent with federal constitut | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Dubreuilgreen1 sentence2004I, § 3, Fla. Const.; see also Rice v. State, 754 So.2d 881, 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (recognizing that "when considering an establishment clause claim under Florida's constitution, a fourth consideration has been added by article I, section 3, of the Florida Constitution"). [6] Appellants cite this Court's decisions in Public Health Trust v. Wons, 541 So.2d 96 (Fla.1989), and In re Dubreuil 629 So.2d 819 (Fla.1993), for the proposition that the Florida Free Exercise Clause requires the state to show that it has a compelling interest in enacting neutral laws of general application. | 1 | 1 |
Public Health Tr. of Dade County v. Wonsgreen1 sentence2004I, § 3, Fla. Const.; see also Rice v. State, 754 So.2d 881, 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (recognizing that "when considering an establishment clause claim under Florida's constitution, a fourth consideration has been added by article I, section 3, of the Florida Constitution"). [6] Appellants cite this Court's decisions in Public Health Trust v. Wons, 541 So.2d 96 (Fla.1989), and In re Dubreuil 629 So.2d 819 (Fla.1993), for the proposition that the Florida Free Exercise Clause requires the state to show that it has a compelling interest in enacting neutral laws of general application. | 1 | 1 |
Schmidt v. Bishopgreen1 sentence2002Schmidt v. Bishop, 779 F.Supp. 321, 332 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (citations omitted) (quoting Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 729 , 20 L.Ed. 666 (1871)). | 1 | 1 |
Penn v. Stategreen1 sentence1999See Penn v. State, 574 So.2d 1079, 1083 (Fla.1991)("The statements Penn's counsel tried to introduce went beyond the scope of direct examination and would have tended to bolster Penn's theory of defense that he was too intoxicated by drugs to know what he was doing. | 1 | 1 |
| County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Unionred | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 493381green | 1 | 1 |
| School District of Grand Rapids v. Ballred | 1 | 1 |
| Lynch v. Donnellygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Makris v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tenney v. City of Miami Beachgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. State
green
2 sentences1983Doe v. State, 262 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). 1980Doe v. State, 262 So.2d 11 (Fla.App. 1972). | 3 | 1975–1983 |
Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock
green
2 sentences2005In holding constitutionally infirm an analogous sales and use tax exemption in North Carolina, the Fourth Circuit explained why a statute like section 212.06(9), insofar as it exempts religious publications, bibles, hymn books and prayer books, is unconstitutional: In Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 , 109 S.Ct. 890 , 103 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989), the Supreme Court held that a Texas sales and use tax exemption which applied to religious literature, but not to other types of literature, violated the establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution.[FN10] We agree with the appel 2005In holding constitutionally infirm an analogous sales and use tax exemption in North Carolina, the Fourth Circuit explained why a statute like section 212.06(9), insofar as it exempts religious publications, bibles, hymn books and prayer books, is unconstitutional: In Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 , 109 S.Ct. 890 , 103 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989), the Supreme Court held that a Texas sales and use tax exemption which applied to religious literature, but not to other types of literature, violated the establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution.[FN10] We agree with the appel | 2 | 2004–2005 |
Roviaro v. United States
green
2 sentences1988In State v. Hassberger, 350 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1977), the court quoted the balancing test adopted by the Supreme Court in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 62 , 77 S.Ct. 623, 629 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), which calls for balancing of the public interest against the individual's right to prepare his defense, and holds that the disclosure determination "must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and the other relevant factors." The state's privilege to withhold 1988In State v. Hassberger, 350 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1977), the court quoted the balancing test adopted by the Supreme Court in Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 62 , 77 S.Ct. 623, 629 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 (1957), which calls for balancing of the public interest against the individual's right to prepare his defense, and holds that the disclosure determination "must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer's testimony, and the other relevant factors." The state's privilege to withhold | 2 | 1988–1989 |
Duval v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2026Irrespective of its origin, Florida’s courts have adopted the reasonable-use rule, see, e.g., Vill. of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 371 So. 2d 663, 666 (Fla. 1979); Cason v. Fla. Power Co., 76 So. 535 , 536 (Fla. 1917), and applied it to a number of contexts, including non-navigable, privately- owned lake bottoms, see, e.g., Duval v. Thomas, 114 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1959); Taylor v. Tampa Coal Co., 46 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1950); Florio v. State ex rel. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Taylor v. Tampa Coal Co.
green
1 sentence2026Irrespective of its origin, Florida’s courts have adopted the reasonable-use rule, see, e.g., Vill. of Tequesta v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 371 So. 2d 663, 666 (Fla. 1979); Cason v. Fla. Power Co., 76 So. 535 , 536 (Fla. 1917), and applied it to a number of contexts, including non-navigable, privately- owned lake bottoms, see, e.g., Duval v. Thomas, 114 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 1959); Taylor v. Tampa Coal Co., 46 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1950); Florio v. State ex rel. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Nohrr v. Brevard County Educational Fac. Auth.
green
2 sentences2010In Nohrr , the court held that the State’s higher education bonds could issue to aid religious schools and secular schools without offending the establishment clause or article I, section three. 247 So.2d at 306-07 . 2010In Nohrr , the court held that the State's higher education bonds could issue to aid religious schools and secular schools without offending the establishment clause or article I, section three. 247 So.2d at 306-07 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Bush v. Holmes
green
2 sentences2010As this court explained in Holmes, Article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution is not "substantively synonymous with the federal Establishment Clause." 886 So.2d at 344 . 2010As this court explained in Holmes, Article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution is not "substantively synonymous with the federal Establishment Clause." 886 So.2d at 344 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Steinhorst v. State
green
1 sentence2007The court noted that if the defendant sought "to elicit testimony from an adverse witness which goes beyond the scope encompassed by the testimony of the witness on direct examination, other than matters going to credibility, he must make the witness his own." 747 So.2d at 1023 , quoting from Steinhorst, 412 So.2d at 337 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Diaz v. State
green
2 sentences2007The medical examiner did not testify regarding the victim's blood alcohol level and the appellate court agreed with the trial court that the subject was "outside the proper scope of cross-examination and was instead directed to the establishment of a defense." 747 So.2d at 1024 . 2007The court noted that if the defendant sought "to elicit testimony from an adverse witness which goes beyond the scope encompassed by the testimony of the witness on direct examination, other than matters going to credibility, he must make the witness his own." 747 So.2d at 1023 , quoting from Steinhorst, 412 So.2d at 337 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
green
2 sentences2004Appellants assert that article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the establishment clause of the United States Constitution and that any program that provides parents with a choice of whether to utilize vouchers in a sectarian institution is constitutional pursuant to the dictates of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 , 122 S.Ct. 2460 , 153 L.Ed.2d 604 (2002). 2004Appellants assert that article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the establishment clause of the United States Constitution and that any program that provides parents with a choice of whether to utilize vouchers in a sectarian institution is constitutional pursuant to the dictates of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 , 122 S.Ct. 2460 , 153 L.Ed.2d 604 (2002). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Widmar v. Vincent
green
2 sentences2004This argument was raised in Widmar, 454 U.S. at 270 , 102 S.Ct. 269 . 2004This argument was raised in Widmar, 454 U.S. at 270 , 102 S.Ct. 269 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Watson v. Jones
green
2 sentences2002Schmidt v. Bishop, 779 F.Supp. 321, 332 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (citations omitted) (quoting Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 729 , 20 L.Ed. 666 (1871)). 2002Schmidt v. Bishop, 779 F.Supp. 321, 332 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (citations omitted) (quoting Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 729 , 20 L.Ed. 666 (1871)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Doe v. Evans
green
1 sentence2002In Evans , the Fourth District concluded that, as with the claim for negligent hiring and supervision, defining the fiduciary duty the Church Defendants owed to Doe "necessarily involves the secular court in church practices, doctrines, and belief." 718 So.2d at 293 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Easley v. State
green
1 sentence2000In Easley v. State, 755 So.2d 692 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 751 So.2d 1251 (Fla.2000), the fourth district applied these tests to paragraph 893.13(1)(e) and found no violation of either establishment clause. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp
green
2 sentences1995Association of Data Processing, 397 U.S. at 154 , 90 S.Ct. at 830 . 1995Association of Data Processing, 397 U.S. at 154 , 90 S.Ct. at 830 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Allen v. Wright
red
2 sentences1995Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 741 , 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3319 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). [4] It may be aesthetic, conservational, recreational, economic, or reflect a spiritual stake in First Amendment values of free speech and the establishment clause. 1995Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 741 , 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3319 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984). [4] It may be aesthetic, conservational, recreational, economic, or reflect a spiritual stake in First Amendment values of free speech and the establishment clause. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Gerald H. Fleischfresser v. Directors of School District 200, a Body Politic and Corporate green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| McGowan v. Maryland green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Lemon v. Kurtzman red | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Harris v. McRae green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Cooper v. Eugene School District No. 4J green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| K mart Corp. v. Idaho State Tax Commission green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Cooper v. Eugene School District No. 4J green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Gulf Maintenance & Supply, Inc. v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Hassberger green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Smith v. State green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Drayton v. State neutral | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Perez green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Hawkins v. State green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| James v. State green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| State v. Wise green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| United States v. Chadwick red | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Cockerham v. State green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Metcalf v. Langston green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| United States v. Kahane green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Waterson v. Seat & Crawford green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| In Re Estate of Horne green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Stevenson v. Arnold green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Merrill L., P., F. & S., Inc. v. Publisher's Vend. Serv., Inc. green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.