5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Company v. McDanielgreen2 sentences2024“A defendant wishing to challenge the plaintiff’s selection has ‘the burden of pleading and proving that the venue is improper.’” Brown v. Nagelhout, 84 So. 3d 304, 308 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Inverness Coca–Cola Bottling Co. v. McDaniel, 78 So. 2d 100, 102 (Fla. 1955)). 2013In Brown v. Nagelhout, 84 So.3d 304, 308-09 (Fla.2012), the Supreme Court of Florida recently affirmed that: A defendant wishing to challenge the plaintiffs selection has “the burden of pleading and proving that the venue is improper.” Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. McDaniel, 78 So.2d 100, 102 (Fla.1955). | 3 | 3 |
Brown v. NAGELHOUTgreen2 sentences2024“A defendant wishing to challenge the plaintiff’s selection has ‘the burden of pleading and proving that the venue is improper.’” Brown v. Nagelhout, 84 So. 3d 304, 308 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Inverness Coca–Cola Bottling Co. v. McDaniel, 78 So. 2d 100, 102 (Fla. 1955)). 2013In Brown v. Nagelhout, 84 So.3d 304, 308-09 (Fla.2012), the Supreme Court of Florida recently affirmed that: A defendant wishing to challenge the plaintiffs selection has “the burden of pleading and proving that the venue is improper.” Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. McDaniel, 78 So.2d 100, 102 (Fla.1955). | 2 | 2 |
CONSOLIDATED ALUMINIUM CORP. v. Weinrothgreen2 sentences2024Aluminum Corp. v. Weinroth, 422 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (“A defendant wishing to contest personal jurisdiction must do so in the first step taken in the case, whether by motion or in a responsive pleading, or that issue is waived and [the] defendant has submitted himself to the court’s jurisdiction.”) (first citing Fla. R. 2022See Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Weinroth, 422 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); see also Snider v. Metcalfe, 157 So. 3d 422, 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Lack of personal jurisdiction is a waivable defense that must be raised at the 'first 6 opportunity’ and before the defendant takes any steps in the proceeding constituting submission to the court’s jurisdiction.”); Lennar Homes, Inc. v. Gabb Constr. | 2 | 2 |
Stephen H. Snider v. Mary Lou Snider Metcalfe, etc., and Randy Ransom Culler, etc.green1 sentence2022See Consolidated Aluminum Corp. v. Weinroth, 422 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); see also Snider v. Metcalfe, 157 So. 3d 422, 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Lack of personal jurisdiction is a waivable defense that must be raised at the 'first 6 opportunity’ and before the defendant takes any steps in the proceeding constituting submission to the court’s jurisdiction.”); Lennar Homes, Inc. v. Gabb Constr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.