5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenthergreen1 sentence2024The panel concluded that the customer’s “testimony about the large amount of dirty liquid and the footprints therein—along with the general manager’s testimony about the presence of the salad bar employees—is enough to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to [the restaurant’s] constructive knowledge.” Id. at 1280.2 It reversed the order granting summary judgment. 2 The panel cited Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Guenther, 395 So. 2d 244, 246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (“[T]estimony that the liquid was dirty and scuffed and had several tracks running through it was . . . adequate to impute constructi | 1 | 1 |
State v. Petersongreen1 sentence2012Id. at 564-65, 567 . | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HOSP. AUTHORITYgreen1 sentence2002In Doe v. Hillsborough County Hospital Authority, 816 So.2d 262, 265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), this court recently explained: “In Nardone and the other cases applying the constructive notice rule, some physical injury or medical condition or event had placed the plaintiff in a posture where the plaintiff could reasonably' have been expected to consider the .need to examine medical records.” In this case, Overholt claims that he was advised that his ongoing medical problems were attributed to his Crohn’s disease and that he was not advised by any physician until 1998 that his condition was related to | 1 | 1 |
Conner v. Joe Hatton, Inc.green1 sentence1995See D’Alemberte v. Anderson, 349 So.2d at 169 ; Sarasota County v. Barg, 302 So.2d at 742 ; Conner v. Joe Hatton, Inc., 216 So.2d 209, 211 (Fla.1968); Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the Commission on Ethics with directions that a dismissal be entered, and that Barker be acquitted of all charges, based upon our conclusion that Section 112.313(4) is unconstitutional. | 1 | 1 |
D'ALEMBERTE v. Andersongreen1 sentence1995See D’Alemberte v. Anderson, 349 So.2d at 169 ; Sarasota County v. Barg, 302 So.2d at 742 ; Conner v. Joe Hatton, Inc., 216 So.2d 209, 211 (Fla.1968); Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the Commission on Ethics with directions that a dismissal be entered, and that Barker be acquitted of all charges, based upon our conclusion that Section 112.313(4) is unconstitutional. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barker v. State, Commission on Ethics
neutral
1 sentence1996In holding the current statute unconstitutional, the court below concluded that the phrase "should know" requires a public official to divine the subjective intent of a donor and that "[b]y imposing a constructive knowledge requirement as to the intent of a third person on public officials, the statute is unconstitutionally vague and susceptible to the inherent dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." Barker, 654 So.2d at 649 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Sarasota County v. Barg
green
1 sentence1995See D’Alemberte v. Anderson, 349 So.2d at 169 ; Sarasota County v. Barg, 302 So.2d at 742 ; Conner v. Joe Hatton, Inc., 216 So.2d 209, 211 (Fla.1968); Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the Commission on Ethics with directions that a dismissal be entered, and that Barker be acquitted of all charges, based upon our conclusion that Section 112.313(4) is unconstitutional. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.