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.
5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1930–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
May v. Palm Beach Chemical Companygreen1 sentence2015Co., 77 So.2d 468, 472 (Fla. 1955) (" ‘[I]f an agent has an immunity from liability as distinguished from a privilege of acting, the principal does not share the immunity.' " (quoting Restatement (First) of Agency § 217 (1933))). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. American Country Insurancegreen2 sentences2013Co., 359 Ill.App.3d 128 , 295 Ull.Dec. 765, 833 N.E.2d 971, 980 (2005) (holding that a policy exclusion for intentional acts of an agent under the doctrine of respon-deat superior creates a conflict of interest with co-defendants requiring separate counsel where “it would be in [one co-defendant’s] best interest to present a defense that he was an agent of [the other co-defendant], while it would be in [the other co-defendant’s] best interest to establish the exact opposite”); Wolpaw v. Gen. 2013Co., 359 Ill.App.3d 128 , 295 Ull.Dec. 765, 833 N.E.2d 971, 980 (2005) (holding that a policy exclusion for intentional acts of an agent under the doctrine of respon-deat superior creates a conflict of interest with co-defendants requiring separate counsel where “it would be in [one co-defendant’s] best interest to present a defense that he was an agent of [the other co-defendant], while it would be in [the other co-defendant’s] best interest to establish the exact opposite”); Wolpaw v. Gen. | 1 | 1 |
Howard v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Howard v. State, 17 So.3d 774 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Warner v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Warner v. State, 916 So.2d 879, 881 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“In his postconviction motion, he failed to request that his plea ... be vacated or to allege that he would not have agreed to the plea ... had he known about the double jeopardy violation. | 1 | 1 |
Mississippi Valley Construction Co. v. Charles T. Abeles & Co.green1 sentence1930See Mississippi Valley Const. Co. v. Abeles & Co., 87 Ark. 374 , 112 So. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Myrick v. Lloyd
green
2 sentences1975Myrick v. Lloyd, 1946, 158 Fla. 47 , 27 So.2d 615 ; Lan-Chile Airlines, Inc. v. Rodriguez, Fla.App.3d 1974, 296 So.2d 498 ; Thee v. Manor Pines Convalescent Center, Fla.App. 4th 1970, 235 So.2d 64 ; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Rosenquist, Fla.App.2d 1959, 112 So.2d 885 ; Gordon v. Hotel Seville, Fla.App.3d 1958, 105 So.2d 175 . 1975Myrick v. Lloyd, 1946, 158 Fla. 47 , 27 So.2d 615 ; Lan-Chile Airlines, Inc. v. Rodriguez, Fla.App.3d 1974, 296 So.2d 498 ; Thee v. Manor Pines Convalescent Center, Fla.App. 4th 1970, 235 So.2d 64 ; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Rosenquist, Fla.App.2d 1959, 112 So.2d 885 ; Gordon v. Hotel Seville, Fla.App.3d 1958, 105 So.2d 175 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Rosenquist
green
1 sentence1975Myrick v. Lloyd, 1946, 158 Fla. 47 , 27 So.2d 615 ; Lan-Chile Airlines, Inc. v. Rodriguez, Fla.App.3d 1974, 296 So.2d 498 ; Thee v. Manor Pines Convalescent Center, Fla.App. 4th 1970, 235 So.2d 64 ; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Rosenquist, Fla.App.2d 1959, 112 So.2d 885 ; Gordon v. Hotel Seville, Fla.App.3d 1958, 105 So.2d 175 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Gordon v. Hotel Seville
green
1 sentence1975Myrick v. Lloyd, 1946, 158 Fla. 47 , 27 So.2d 615 ; Lan-Chile Airlines, Inc. v. Rodriguez, Fla.App.3d 1974, 296 So.2d 498 ; Thee v. Manor Pines Convalescent Center, Fla.App. 4th 1970, 235 So.2d 64 ; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Rosenquist, Fla.App.2d 1959, 112 So.2d 885 ; Gordon v. Hotel Seville, Fla.App.3d 1958, 105 So.2d 175 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Lan-Chile Airlines, Inc. v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence1975Myrick v. Lloyd, 1946, 158 Fla. 47 , 27 So.2d 615 ; Lan-Chile Airlines, Inc. v. Rodriguez, Fla.App.3d 1974, 296 So.2d 498 ; Thee v. Manor Pines Convalescent Center, Fla.App. 4th 1970, 235 So.2d 64 ; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Rosenquist, Fla.App.2d 1959, 112 So.2d 885 ; Gordon v. Hotel Seville, Fla.App.3d 1958, 105 So.2d 175 . | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Thee v. Manor Pines Convalescent Center, Inc.
green
1 sentence1975Myrick v. Lloyd, 1946, 158 Fla. 47 , 27 So.2d 615 ; Lan-Chile Airlines, Inc. v. Rodriguez, Fla.App.3d 1974, 296 So.2d 498 ; Thee v. Manor Pines Convalescent Center, Fla.App. 4th 1970, 235 So.2d 64 ; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Rosenquist, Fla.App.2d 1959, 112 So.2d 885 ; Gordon v. Hotel Seville, Fla.App.3d 1958, 105 So.2d 175 . | 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.