occurrence claim (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

occurrence claim in Florida

5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1958–2014 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Poore v. Stategreen
fla · 1988 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
1 sentence

2008See id.

11

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
US Fire Ins. Co. v. Fleekop green
fladistctapp · 1996
1 sentence

2014With claims-made policies, on the other hand, coverage will only “trigger ... if the negligent or omitted act is discovered and brought to the attention of the insurer within the policy term.” Id. (citations and internal quotation omitted).

12014–2014
Marrero v. Goldsmith green
fla · 1986
1 sentence

1996Marrero v. Goldsmith, M.D., 486 So.2d 530 (Fla.1986); Lord v. J.B.

11996–1996
Dade County v. Ferro green
fla · 1980
1 sentence

1992The holding in Johnson was explained in Dade County v. Ferro, 384 So.2d 1283 (Fla. 1980), which distinguished the accrual of a claim under the particular limitations provision involved in Johnson from the occurrence of a claim under other limitations provisions.

11992–1992
Coco v. State green
fla · 1953
1 sentence

1958Cross-examination of a witness upon the subjects covered in his direct examination is an invaluable right and when it is denied to him it cannot be said that such ruling does not constitute harmful and fatal error. ⅜ * *» The witness in his direct examination had remained silent on this particular phase of the case, but he had named the defendant’s wife as being present at the scene of the occurrence and the defense was, in his theory of the case, to lay the groundwork that the defendant had come to the defense of his wife, as was stated on page 895 in Coco v. State, supra: “The rule which pro

11958–1958

Where else courts name it

CT 43 (1988–2025) MS 36 (1974–2023) OH 21 (1989–2025) PA 20 (1978–2025) GA 18 (1940–2026) TX 17 (1948–2020) CA 16 (1946–2022) IN 16 (1979–2017) NY 16 (1945–2024) IL 14 (1948–2023) NJ 14 (1957–2025) NM 13 (1996–2022) NE 12 (1984–2022) SD 12 (1990–2020) KS 10 (1988–2015) WA 9 (1995–2026) AR 8 (1973–2020) MO 8 (1980–2025) LA 7 (1983–2019) KY 6 (1997–2025) AL 6 (1946–2015) ME 6 (1996–2019) MN 5 (1945–2017) FL 5 (1958–2014) DC 4 (1997–2014) NV 4 (1963–2014) MD 4 (1974–2022) NC 4 (1948–1996) TN 3 (2014–2019) AZ 3 (1981–2010) DE 3 (1977–2025) AK 3 (1990–2016) OR 3 (1945–2008) OK 3 (1950–2023) WV 2 (1979–2008)

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