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 1 courts 1981–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hudson Pest Control v. Westford Asset Mgt.green1 sentence2024We have no transcript of the bench trial or of the ensuing hearing on Irick's motion for rehearing; consequently, we have no basis to evaluate the factual underpinnings of the trial court's facially correct legal conclusion that Irick was not entitled to equitable subrogation. 1 See Kvinta v. Kvinta, 277 So. 3d 1070 , 1075–76 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) ("When 'there is no transcript of the testimony presented to the trial judge,' an appellate court should 'give utmost credence to his fact findings, and assume there was the best imaginable evidence adduced to support them.' " (quoting Hudson Pest Cont | 1 | 1 |
First Interstate Dev. Corp. v. Ablanedogreen1 sentence2019In support thereof, Respondent cited First Interstate Development Corp. v. Ablanedo, 511 So. 2d 536, 539 (Fla. 1987) for the proposition that “proof of fraud sufficient to support compensatory damages necessarily is sufficient to create a jury question regarding punitive damages.” Petitioners countered that regardless of the previous ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the court was required to conduct a section 768.72 evidentiary inquiry to determine whether there was evidence in the record which would provide a reasonable basis for recovery of punitive damages. | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Statered1 sentence2015See Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771, 775 (Fla.1971). | 1 | 1 |
Key Haven Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Internal Improvement Trust Fundgreen1 sentence1982Key Haven Associated v. Board of Trustees, supra, 400 So.2d at 73, n. 15, review docketed no. 61,027 (Fla., orally *1341 argued April 14, 1982). | 1 | 1 |
McDonald v. Dept. of Banking and Financegreen1 sentence1982On remand, the prophesy uttered in McDonald v. Dept. of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), regarding the potential effects of scrupulous adherence to APA processes, was realized: The ensuing hearing and recommended order of the hearing officer subjected the "agency [head] to the sobering realization [that its] policies lack[ed] convincing wisdom... ." Specifically, HRS adopted the hearing officer's recommended interpretation that the statute did not require exclusive use of the father's name, and thereupon ordered that the hyphenated surname of both parents be entered | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
De Groot v. Sheffield
green
1 sentence1981The final judgment appealed from is affirmed on the basis that: (1) the underlying proceeding before the Retirement Board of the City of Miami seeking accidental disability pension pursuant to Resolution No. 39802 adopted June 20,1968 was quasi-judicial in nature, De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912 (Fla.1957); Bloomfield v. Mayo, 119 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), and culminated in an order rendered March 7, 1975; (2) under the then-applicable and governing provisions of Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 4.1 and 4.5c(l), the order was reviewable within sixty days from rendition; and (3) th | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Central Truck Lines v. Boyd
green
1 sentence1981Central Truck Lines, Inc. v. Boyd, 106 So.2d 547 (Fla.1958). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Bloomfield v. Mayo
green
1 sentence1981The final judgment appealed from is affirmed on the basis that: (1) the underlying proceeding before the Retirement Board of the City of Miami seeking accidental disability pension pursuant to Resolution No. 39802 adopted June 20,1968 was quasi-judicial in nature, De Groot v. Sheffield, 95 So.2d 912 (Fla.1957); Bloomfield v. Mayo, 119 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), and culminated in an order rendered March 7, 1975; (2) under the then-applicable and governing provisions of Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 4.1 and 4.5c(l), the order was reviewable within sixty days from rendition; and (3) th | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.