Gibbs test in Florida

5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2015 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.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Nelson v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2003 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See Nelson v. State, 855 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Burgess v. State, 831 So.2d 137 (Fla.2002); Valdes v. State, 765 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).	1	1
Blosser v. Blossergreen fladistctapp · 1998 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004"First, the party seeking to modify a custody decree must plead and establish that circumstances have substantially changed since the final judgment... [and s]econd, the petitioner must establish that the change has such an important impact on the child that the court is justified in imposing a change of custody in the 'best interests' of the child." The "best interests" prong is proven when the trial court finds that a "change in custody will so clearly promote or improve the child's well-being to such an extent that any reasonable parent would understand that maintaining the status quo would 2004"First, the party seeking to modify a custody decree must plead and establish that circumstances have substantially changed since the final judgment... [and s]econd, the petitioner must establish that the change has such an important impact on the child that the court is justified in imposing a change of custody in the 'best interests' of the child." The "best interests" prong is proven when the trial court finds that a "change in custody will so clearly promote or improve the child's well-being to such an extent that any reasonable parent would understand that maintaining the status quo would	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

Case	Cited	Years
Gethers v. State green fla · 2003 1 sentence 2015The postconviction court ruled that it would grant Ms. Gibbs credit for jail time served on May 1, 2013, “the date she was taken into custody in Hillsborough County on the Pinellas County warrant and prior to the filing of the Hillsborough County charges on May 2, 2013.” In Gethers v. State, 838 So.2d 504 (Fla.2003), the supreme court distinguished cases in which a warrant had been executed from those in which a detainer was lodged by a prosecutor or law enforcement agency.	1	2015–2015
Cuc v. State green fladistctapp · 2003 1 sentence 2005Cuc v. State, 834 So.2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 847 So.2d 975 (Fla.2003).	1	2005–2005
Wyckoff v. Wyckoff green fladistctapp · 2002 2 sentences 2005Id. 2005Id.	1	2005–2005
Valdes v. State green fladistctapp · 2000 1 sentence 2004See Nelson v. State, 855 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Burgess v. State, 831 So.2d 137 (Fla.2002); Valdes v. State, 765 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).	1	2004–2004
Gibbs v. State green fla · 1997 1 sentence 2004The facts as detailed in Gibbs v. State, 698 So.2d 1206 (Fla.1997), quashing Gibbs v. State, 676 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), along with the trial excerpts provided by Gibbs to this court permit such review.	1	2004–2004
Gibbs v. State green fladistctapp · 1996 1 sentence 2004The facts as detailed in Gibbs v. State, 698 So.2d 1206 (Fla.1997), quashing Gibbs v. State, 676 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), along with the trial excerpts provided by Gibbs to this court permit such review.	1	2004–2004
Ring v. Ring green fladistctapp · 2002 2 sentences 2004Ring v. Ring, 834 So.2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Newsom v. Newsom, 759 So.2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Cassin v. 1173 Cassin, 726 So.2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). 2004Ring v. Ring, 834 So.2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Newsom v. Newsom, 759 So.2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Cassin v. 1173 Cassin, 726 So.2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).	1	2004–2004
Newsom v. Newsom green fladistctapp · 2000 2 sentences 2004Ring v. Ring, 834 So.2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Newsom v. Newsom, 759 So.2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Cassin v. 1173 Cassin, 726 So.2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). 2004Ring v. Ring, 834 So.2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Newsom v. Newsom, 759 So.2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Cassin v. 1173 Cassin, 726 So.2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).	1	2004–2004
Cassin v. Cassin green fladistctapp · 1999 2 sentences 2004Ring v. Ring, 834 So.2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Newsom v. Newsom, 759 So.2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Cassin v. 1173 Cassin, 726 So.2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). 2004Ring v. Ring, 834 So.2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Newsom v. Newsom, 759 So.2d 718 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Cassin v. 1173 Cassin, 726 So.2d 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).	1	2004–2004
Burgess v. State green fla · 2002 1 sentence 2004See Nelson v. State, 855 So.2d 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Burgess v. State, 831 So.2d 137 (Fla.2002); Valdes v. State, 765 So.2d 774 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000).	1	2004–2004
Gibbs v. Gibbs green fladistctapp · 1996 2 sentences 2004"First, the party seeking to modify a custody decree must plead and establish that circumstances have substantially changed since the final judgment... [and s]econd, the petitioner must establish that the change has such an important impact on the child that the court is justified in imposing a change of custody in the 'best interests' of the child." The "best interests" prong is proven when the trial court finds that a "change in custody will so clearly promote or improve the child's well-being to such an extent that any reasonable parent would understand that maintaining the status quo would 2004"First, the party seeking to modify a custody decree must plead and establish that circumstances have substantially changed since the final judgment... [and s]econd, the petitioner must establish that the change has such an important impact on the child that the court is justified in imposing a change of custody in the 'best interests' of the child." The "best interests" prong is proven when the trial court finds that a "change in custody will so clearly promote or improve the child's well-being to such an extent that any reasonable parent would understand that maintaining the status quo would	1	2004–2004

Where else courts name it

NY 8 (1975–2001) TX 7 (1974–2019) CA 7 (1986–2026) FL 5 (2004–2015) GA 5 (1994–2018) IL 4 (1994–2020) OH 3 (2014–2023) SC 2 (2016–2024) ND 2 (2009–2009) IA 2 (2020–2023) DE 2 (2017–2018) AL 2 (1992–2010)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check