5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maria Suarez v. Steward Enterprises and Travelers Ins. Co.green1 sentence2016Suarez v. Steward Enters., 164 So.3d 132, 134 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); see also, e.g., Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sirianni v. Kiehne
neutral
1 sentence1996As the Fourth District has explained, “an affected plaintiff may either seek an extension of the 120-day time limit prior to its expiration or provide good cause for the delay in a hearing held pursuant to a motion filed subsequent to the expiration of the [120-day] time period.” Sirianni v. Kiehne, 608 So.2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State Ex Rel. Butler v. Cullen
green
1 sentence1983Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So.2d 968 (Fla. 1980); State ex rel Butler v. Cullen, 253 So.2d 861 (Fla. 1971). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Armstrong v. Manzo
green
1 sentence1983The fundamental requirement of Due Process is the opportunity to be heard and it is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner: Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Butterworth in and for Broward Cty. v. Fluellen
green
1 sentence1983Butterworth v. Fluellen, 389 So.2d 968 (Fla. 1980); State ex rel Butler v. Cullen, 253 So.2d 861 (Fla. 1971). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Parratt v. Taylor
red
1 sentence1983The fundamental requirement of Due Process is the opportunity to be heard and it is an opportunity which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner: Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981); Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Tate v. Pensacola, Gulf, Land & Development Co.
green
1 sentence1968The legal effect of the appellee's unwillingness to convey is found in Tate v. Pensacola, Gulf, Land and Development Co., 37 Fla. 439 , 20 So. 542 (1896), in which the Florida Supreme Court ruled as follows: "The defendant, in order to avail himself of the plaintiff's delay as a defense, must have performed, or been ready and willing to perform, all the terms of the contract on his own part." Although the appellant relies on anticipatory breach to show the appellee's unwillingness to close, he pled and proved *40 that the appellee conditioned his willingness to close upon a modification of the | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.