5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rose v. Hansellgreen1 sentence2026The trial court heard and granted the motion for judgment of partition without ruling on Ortiz’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim, basing its judgment on Ortiz’s “entitle[ment] to a partition of the Property as a matter of right under Florida Statutes § 64.051,” and citing Rose v. Hansell, 929 So. 2d 22, 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“The general rule is that partition is a matter of right, but there are rare exceptions.”). 2 The court ostensibly addressed Salazar’s counterclaim for specific performance of his unwritten agreement with Ortiz by concluding that Salazar failed to provide evidence of a | 1 | 1 |
Ortiz v. Stategreen1 sentence2008For example, in Ortiz v. State, 942 So.2d 1013, 1015 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), the Second District noted that even though Ortiz's claim of self defense was "debatable," it could not conclude as a matter of law that Ortiz was not entitled to an instruction on self-defense. | 1 | 1 |
Trotter v. Stategreen2 sentences1991A challenge for cause should invariably be granted when the prospective juror is an employee of the legal counsel state attorney, public defender, or private law firm in the case being tried. [1] , [2] NOTES [1] As the court stated in Trotter v. State, 576 So.2d 691, 693 (Fla. 1991): "Where a defendant seeks reversal based on a claim that he was wrongfully forced to exhaust his peremptory challenges, he initially must identify a specific juror whom he otherwise would have struck peremptorily. 1991A challenge for cause should invariably be granted when the prospective juror is an employee of the legal counsel state attorney, public defender, or private law firm in the case being tried. [1] , [2] NOTES [1] As the court stated in Trotter v. State, 576 So.2d 691, 693 (Fla. 1991): "Where a defendant seeks reversal based on a claim that he was wrongfully forced to exhaust his peremptory challenges, he initially must identify a specific juror whom he otherwise would have struck peremptorily. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kronen v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co.
green
2 sentences2023Co. as Tr. for WAMU Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR3, 267 So. 3d 447 , 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (affirming foreclosure where homeowner offered no evidence to rebut the Ortiz presumption proving standing 2). 2023Co. as Tr. for WAMU Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-AR3, 267 So. 3d 447 , 448 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (affirming foreclosure where homeowner offered no evidence to rebut the Ortiz presumption proving standing 2). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
LB v. State
green
2 sentences1997Until this court held that the "common pocketknife" exception in section 790.001(13) was unconstitutionally vague, L.B. v. State, 681 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), the Ortiz rule of law allowed for differing jury outcomes in cases involving identical knives in identical pockets or purses. 1997Until this court held that the "common pocketknife" exception in section 790.001(13) was unconstitutionally vague, L.B. v. State, 681 So.2d 1179 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), the Ortiz rule of law allowed for differing jury outcomes in cases involving identical knives in identical pockets or purses. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.