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 1990–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coral Gables Imports, Inc. v. Suarezgreen1 sentence2024See also Coral Gables Imports, Inc. v. Suarez, 219 So. 3d 101, 103 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (acknowledging that a void order is not 7 subject to the one-year limitation of rule 1.540(b) and holding that the motion to vacate, filed approximately fourteen months after dismissal of the action, was “filed within a reasonable time.”) Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070 provides the procedure for issuance of the summons and service of process. | 1 | 1 |
Whitman v. Whitmangreen1 sentence1990Arrieta-Gimenez v. Arrieta-Negron, 551 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 1989); [1] Whitman v. Whitman, 532 So.2d 82 *634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Feldan v. Goodman, 460 So.2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bortz v. Bortz
green
1 sentence2005Co. v. Pearson, 236 So.2d 1 (Fla.1970); Abram v. Wolicki, 864 So.2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reversing a trial court’s order vacating an order denying a new trial where a party filed a motion for rehearing on the motion for new trial which was not authorized by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530); Wilder v. Wilder, 251 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (reversing an order clarifying and amending a final judgment entered as the result of a motion filed by a party beyond the one year limitation in rule 1.540(b)); Bortz v. Bortz, 675 So.2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing a trial court’s order wh | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Shelby Mutual Ins. Co. of Shelby, Ohio v. Pearson
green
1 sentence2005Co. v. Pearson, 236 So.2d 1 (Fla.1970); Abram v. Wolicki, 864 So.2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reversing a trial court’s order vacating an order denying a new trial where a party filed a motion for rehearing on the motion for new trial which was not authorized by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530); Wilder v. Wilder, 251 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (reversing an order clarifying and amending a final judgment entered as the result of a motion filed by a party beyond the one year limitation in rule 1.540(b)); Bortz v. Bortz, 675 So.2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing a trial court’s order wh | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Wilder v. Wilder
green
1 sentence2005Co. v. Pearson, 236 So.2d 1 (Fla.1970); Abram v. Wolicki, 864 So.2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reversing a trial court’s order vacating an order denying a new trial where a party filed a motion for rehearing on the motion for new trial which was not authorized by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530); Wilder v. Wilder, 251 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (reversing an order clarifying and amending a final judgment entered as the result of a motion filed by a party beyond the one year limitation in rule 1.540(b)); Bortz v. Bortz, 675 So.2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing a trial court’s order wh | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Abram v. Wolicki
green
1 sentence2005Co. v. Pearson, 236 So.2d 1 (Fla.1970); Abram v. Wolicki, 864 So.2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reversing a trial court’s order vacating an order denying a new trial where a party filed a motion for rehearing on the motion for new trial which was not authorized by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530); Wilder v. Wilder, 251 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (reversing an order clarifying and amending a final judgment entered as the result of a motion filed by a party beyond the one year limitation in rule 1.540(b)); Bortz v. Bortz, 675 So.2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing a trial court’s order wh | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Kirby v. Speight
green
1 sentence2005Co. v. Pearson, 236 So.2d 1 (Fla.1970); Abram v. Wolicki, 864 So.2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reversing a trial court’s order vacating an order denying a new trial where a party filed a motion for rehearing on the motion for new trial which was not authorized by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530); Wilder v. Wilder, 251 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) (reversing an order clarifying and amending a final judgment entered as the result of a motion filed by a party beyond the one year limitation in rule 1.540(b)); Bortz v. Bortz, 675 So.2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing a trial court’s order wh | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Bolender v. State
green
1 sentence1996In Bolender v. State, 658 So.2d 82 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 12 , 132 L.Ed.2d 896 (1995), we recognized the one-year limitation in rule 3.850(b) but still allowed the defendant a two-year period within which to file an otherwise time-barred claim under the rule following the date that the evidence could have been discovered. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
DeClaire v. Yohanan
red
2 sentences1996In reaching this determination in DeClaire , we explained: When an issue is before a court for resolution, and the complaining party could have addressed the issue in the proceeding, such as attacking the false testimony or misrepresentation through cross examination and other evidence, then the improper conduct, even though it may be perjury, is intrinsic fraud and an attack on a final judgment based on such fraud must be made within one year of the entry of the judgment. 453 So.2d at 380 . 1996Because the false financial affidavits submitted by the husband were part of the record in the case and the husband's net worth was a matter before the court for resolution, this Court found the conduct to be intrinsic fraud, not fraud on the court, and thus subject to the one-year limitation in rule 1.540(b). [3] Id. at 380 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Bolender v. Florida
green
1 sentence1996In Bolender v. State, 658 So.2d 82 (Fla.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 12 , 132 L.Ed.2d 896 (1995), we recognized the one-year limitation in rule 3.850(b) but still allowed the defendant a two-year period within which to file an otherwise time-barred claim under the rule following the date that the evidence could have been discovered. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Arrieta-Gimenez v. Arrieta-Negron
green
1 sentence1990Arrieta-Gimenez v. Arrieta-Negron, 551 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 1989); [1] Whitman v. Whitman, 532 So.2d 82 *634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Feldan v. Goodman, 460 So.2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Feldan v. Goodman
neutral
1 sentence1990Arrieta-Gimenez v. Arrieta-Negron, 551 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 1989); [1] Whitman v. Whitman, 532 So.2d 82 *634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Feldan v. Goodman, 460 So.2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.