objections defense (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

objections defense in Florida

5 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1963–2015 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 (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Delhall v. State green
fla · 2012
1 sentence

2015Id. at 167 .

12015–2015
Fla. Psc v. Pruitt, Humphress green
fladistctapp · 1991
2 sentences

2014In Arky, Freed, Stearns, Watson, Greer, Weaver & Harris, P.A. v. Bowmar Instrument Corp., 587 So.2d 561 (Fla.1988), the plaintiff proceeded to trial and obtained a jury verdict over the objections of the defense that the plaintiffs theory was not properly pled.

2014Id. at 562 .

12014–2014
ST. JOHNS RIVER v. Consolidated-Tomoka green
fladistctapp · 1998
1 sentence

2001Instead, "[a] party challenging a proposed rule has the burden of establishing a factual basis for the objections to the rule, and then the agency has the ultimate burden of persuasion to show that the proposed rule is a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority." 717 So.2d at 77 .

12001–2001
Warrick v. Hender green
fladistctapp · 1967
1 sentence

1971It is the opinion of this court that the wife acquires a vested right in past-due installments which were provided in the final judgment of divorce for periodic payments for child support as well as for alimony (Warrick v. Hender, supra).

11971–1971
Ellard v. Godwin green
fla · 1955
1 sentence

1963In the case of Ellard v. Godwin, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 617 , our Supreme Court held that under the statute providing that a county judge, for good cause shown, may extend the time for filing an objection to any claim against an estate, the excuse that “for some reason” administratrix did not learn of the filing of a claim was not “good cause” for the administratrix’s failure to make timely objection to a claim and would not justify extension of time to permit the filing an objection.

11963–1963

Where else courts name it

NY 22 (1926–2018) CA 18 (1919–2022) MO 16 (1922–2020) IL 16 (1909–1992) OH 16 (1995–2026) AL 14 (1888–2016) TX 12 (1963–2018) PA 9 (1978–2025) LA 7 (1986–2015) OK 6 (1923–1974) CO 6 (1906–2026) WA 5 (1948–2012) FL 5 (1963–2015) GA 5 (1955–1997) MI 4 (1951–2020) IN 4 (1923–1979) MD 4 (1914–2013) OR 3 (1989–2011) IA 3 (1886–2017) RI 3 (1907–2007) AR 3 (1960–2019) VA 3 (1921–2002) NC 3 (1983–2008) MA 3 (1994–2007) TN 2 (1889–1935) NM 2 (2021–2023) WV 2 (1947–1987) SC 2 (1981–2017) UT 2 (1989–1989) MS 2 (2008–2023) AZ 2 (1957–2024) KS 2 (2006–2024)

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