5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
AVELO MORTGAGE, LLC. v. VERO VENTURES, LLC. etc.green1 sentence2025See Avelo Mortg., LLC v. Vero Ventures, LLC, 254 So. 3d 439, 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (explaining that to demonstrate prejudice for purposes of applying laches, the party raising the defense must establish that he or she has suffered a loss or injury by relying "on another person's voluntary failure to exercise a legal right" and further explaining that a party's delay in asserting a legal right— standing alone—does not establish laches (first quoting Pyne v. Black, 650 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); and then relying on Ticktin, 807 So. 2d at 663 )). | 1 | 1 |
Pyne v. Blackgreen1 sentence2025See Avelo Mortg., LLC v. Vero Ventures, LLC, 254 So. 3d 439, 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (explaining that to demonstrate prejudice for purposes of applying laches, the party raising the defense must establish that he or she has suffered a loss or injury by relying "on another person's voluntary failure to exercise a legal right" and further explaining that a party's delay in asserting a legal right— standing alone—does not establish laches (first quoting Pyne v. Black, 650 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); and then relying on Ticktin, 807 So. 2d at 663 )). | 1 | 1 |
Florance v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2025Notably, the delay between the dismissal of the second foreclosure action and the filing of the third foreclosure action benefitted the Vanderburgs by allowing them to remain in the property for a longer period of time; this cannot constitute "legal prejudice." Id. (citing Florance v. Johnson, 366 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)). | 1 | 1 |
Kerestesy v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Franqui v. State, 804 So.2d 1185, 1191 (Fla.2001); Michael v. State, 796 So.2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(holding that "[u]ncertainty as to a venireperson's impartiality must be resolved in favor of a party raising the challenge."). *494 In the instant case, Ms. Garner's "equivocal response to counsel's questions cast a reasonable doubt as to her ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case." Kerestesy v. State, 760 So.2d 989, 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Henry v. State, 586 So.2d 1335, 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(holding that trial court abused its discretion by not excusing juror | 1 | 1 |
Franqui v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Franqui v. State, 804 So.2d 1185, 1191 (Fla.2001); Michael v. State, 796 So.2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(holding that "[u]ncertainty as to a venireperson's impartiality must be resolved in favor of a party raising the challenge."). *494 In the instant case, Ms. Garner's "equivocal response to counsel's questions cast a reasonable doubt as to her ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case." Kerestesy v. State, 760 So.2d 989, 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Henry v. State, 586 So.2d 1335, 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(holding that trial court abused its discretion by not excusing juror | 1 | 1 |
Henry v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Franqui v. State, 804 So.2d 1185, 1191 (Fla.2001); Michael v. State, 796 So.2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(holding that "[u]ncertainty as to a venireperson's impartiality must be resolved in favor of a party raising the challenge."). *494 In the instant case, Ms. Garner's "equivocal response to counsel's questions cast a reasonable doubt as to her ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case." Kerestesy v. State, 760 So.2d 989, 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Henry v. State, 586 So.2d 1335, 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(holding that trial court abused its discretion by not excusing juror | 1 | 1 |
James v. Stategreen1 sentence2001James v. State, 731 So.2d 781, 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Montozzi v. State, 633 So.2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see Martinez v. State, 795 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Stategreen1 sentence2001James v. State, 731 So.2d 781, 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Montozzi v. State, 633 So.2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see Martinez v. State, 795 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Captains Table, Inc. v. Khourigreen1 sentence1983See Captain's Table, Inc. v. Khouri, 208 So.2d 677, 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ticktin v. Kearin
green
2 sentences2025See Avelo Mortg., LLC v. Vero Ventures, LLC, 254 So. 3d 439, 443 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (explaining that to demonstrate prejudice for purposes of applying laches, the party raising the defense must establish that he or she has suffered a loss or injury by relying "on another person's voluntary failure to exercise a legal right" and further explaining that a party's delay in asserting a legal right— standing alone—does not establish laches (first quoting Pyne v. Black, 650 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); and then relying on Ticktin, 807 So. 2d at 663 )). 2025Notably, the delay between the dismissal of the second foreclosure action and the filing of the third foreclosure action benefitted the Vanderburgs by allowing them to remain in the property for a longer period of time; this cannot constitute "legal prejudice." Id. (citing Florance v. Johnson, 366 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Michael v. State
neutral
1 sentence2002Franqui v. State, 804 So.2d 1185, 1191 (Fla.2001); Michael v. State, 796 So.2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(holding that "[u]ncertainty as to a venireperson's impartiality must be resolved in favor of a party raising the challenge."). *494 In the instant case, Ms. Garner's "equivocal response to counsel's questions cast a reasonable doubt as to her ability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in this case." Kerestesy v. State, 760 So.2d 989, 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); see also Henry v. State, 586 So.2d 1335, 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)(holding that trial court abused its discretion by not excusing juror | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Montozzi v. State
green
1 sentence2001James v. State, 731 So.2d 781, 782 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Montozzi v. State, 633 So.2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see Martinez v. State, 795 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Stockham v. Stockham
green
1 sentence1989Our reading of the DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., in conjunction with American Air Transport, Inc. v. Seafirst Commercial Corp., 452 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) and Stockham v. Stockham, 168 So.2d 320 (Fla.1964), indicates that the sword and shield test is not whether the party raising the privilege is a defendant or a plaintiff, as the wife argues, but whether the person is seeking affirmative relief, no matter what his designation as a party. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
American Air Transport, Inc. v. Seafirst Commercial Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1989Our reading of the DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., in conjunction with American Air Transport, Inc. v. Seafirst Commercial Corp., 452 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) and Stockham v. Stockham, 168 So.2d 320 (Fla.1964), indicates that the sword and shield test is not whether the party raising the privilege is a defendant or a plaintiff, as the wife argues, but whether the person is seeking affirmative relief, no matter what his designation as a party. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.