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 1970–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Temporary Custody of LMgreen1 sentence2003See Dent v. Dent, 851 So.2d 819, 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)(Stringer, J., concurring)("It is well settled that courts retain authority over interlocutory orders and may change, modify or set aside such orders until the entry of a final judgment."); T.M.M. v. H.M.C., 788 So.2d 1114, 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(explaining that trial court was free to revisit temporary nonfinal order requiring father to continue to provide visitation with his children to his sister where order was entered "without prejudice" and in contemplation of a further evidentiary hearing). | 1 | 1 |
Dent v. Dentgreen1 sentence2003See Dent v. Dent, 851 So.2d 819, 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)(Stringer, J., concurring)("It is well settled that courts retain authority over interlocutory orders and may change, modify or set aside such orders until the entry of a final judgment."); T.M.M. v. H.M.C., 788 So.2d 1114, 1118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(explaining that trial court was free to revisit temporary nonfinal order requiring father to continue to provide visitation with his children to his sister where order was entered "without prejudice" and in contemplation of a further evidentiary hearing). | 1 | 1 |
Huff v. Stategreen1 sentence2002On December 21, 2001, the trial court held a hearing pursuant to Huff v. State, 622 So.2d 982, 983 (Fla.1993), at which all parties agreed there was no need for a further evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ascontec Consulting, Inc. v. Young
green
1 sentence2019After receiving the accountant's report and conducting a further evidentiary hearing, the trial court ruled in favor of [appellee]." Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Perez v. State
green
1 sentence2018Given those circumstances, our instructions on remand permitted the trial court, in its discretion, to “hold a further evidentiary hearing or take additional evidence before considering this matter on remand.” Perez, 212 So. 3d at 472 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Chimel v. California
red
2 sentences1970The defendant urges that the late decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685, 689 , renders the entire search and seizure illegal. 1970The defendant urges that the late decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S.Ct. 2034 , 23 L.Ed.2d 685, 689 , renders the entire search and seizure illegal. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.