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 1991–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peabody Western Coal Co.green2 sentences2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan 2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan | 2 | 2 |
Minnesota v. Hitchcockgreen2 sentences2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan 2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan | 2 | 2 |
Houston v. Ormesgreen2 sentences2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan 2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan | 2 | 2 |
Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp.green2 sentences2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan 2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan 2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Sebertgreen2 sentences2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan 2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan | 2 | 2 |
Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. v. Kridergreen1 sentence1994Compare Doctor’s Business Service, Inc. v. Clark, 498 So.2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (citing with approval Larson analysis of com-pensability of injuries incurred going to or coming from off-premises lunch), review denied, 506 So.2d 1041 (Fla.1987) with Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. v. Krider, 473 So.2d 829, 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“An employer-condoned off-premises refreshment break of insubstantial duration is generally not such a deviation as to remove a claimant from the course and scope of the employment”). | 1 | 1 |
Doctor's Business Service, Inc. v. Clarkgreen1 sentence1994Compare Doctor’s Business Service, Inc. v. Clark, 498 So.2d 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (citing with approval Larson analysis of com-pensability of injuries incurred going to or coming from off-premises lunch), review denied, 506 So.2d 1041 (Fla.1987) with Holly Hill Fruit Products, Inc. v. Krider, 473 So.2d 829, 830 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“An employer-condoned off-premises refreshment break of insubstantial duration is generally not such a deviation as to remove a claimant from the course and scope of the employment”). | 1 | 1 |
Brockman v. City of Daniagreen1 sentence1991In Brockman v. City of Dania, 428 So.2d 745, 746 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), this court held that: [The claimant] has failed to demonstrate that the [employer] derived “substantial direct benefit” from the game beyond the intangible benefit of improvement of employee morale common to any kind of recreational activity. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Made in the USA Foundation v. United States
green
2 sentences2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan 2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Liberty Counsel v. Florida Bar Board of Governors
green
2 sentences2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan 2024See Houston v. Ormes, 252 U.S. 469, 472 (1920). "[A] suit brought by the person entitled to the performance of the duty against the official charged with its performance is not a suit against the government." Id.; see also Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 386 (1902) (describing that "cases in which officers of the United States are sued, in appropriate form, to compel them to perform some ministerial duty imposed upon them by law, and which they wrongfully neglect or refuse to perform," "would not 4 Courts have recognized that Congress codified the principles expressed in Larson and Dugan | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Hardison v. State
green
1 sentence2014However, the Fifth District’s recent decision in State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Phillips, 134 So.3d 505 , 2014 WL 560853 , 39 Fla. L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Phillips
neutral
1 sentence2014However, the Fifth District’s recent decision in State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Phillips, 134 So.3d 505 , 2014 WL 560853 , 39 Fla. L. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.