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 1985–2008 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Holder v. Keller Kitchen Cabinetsgreen2 sentences1998See Holder v. Keller Kitchen Cabinets, 610 So.2d 1264, 1267 (Fla.1992) (holding that an order stricken as addressing a premature claim is not res judicata as to the merits of the claim). 1998See Holder v. Keller Kitchen Cabinets, 610 So.2d 1264, 1267 (Fla.1992) (holding that an order stricken as addressing a premature claim is not res judicata on the merits of the claim). | 2 | 2 |
PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY v. Shockleygreen1 sentence2008Co. v. Shockley, 951 So.2d 20, 20 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), we follow this court's reasoning in Copeland that the simple fact that the denial of a motion to dismiss results in a premature claim going forward does not, by itself, establish irreparable harm to the insurer. | 1 | 1 |
Nardone v. Reynoldsyellow1 sentence1985Thus, to disallow risk of cancer damages and limit recovery to damages for actual cancer when it develops, even though, because of the latent nature of the disease, the cancer action is brought decades after the exposure to asbestos, is ironically consistent with the purpose of statutes of limitations, that is, to avoid the speculative testimony of witnesses. [9] *524 See generally Nardone v. Reynolds, 333 So.2d 25, 36 (Fla. 1976) (purpose of statute of limitations is, inter alia, to shield defendants from being left to defend old claims with nothing more than "tattered or faded memories, misp | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Mississippi
green
2 sentences2006These include Garcia's claims that he is entitled to retroactive relief under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); that he is innocent of the death penalty; that Florida's system of lethal injection is unconstitutional; that the trial court's finding of the prior conviction aggravator violated Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578 , 108 S.Ct. 1981 , 100 L.Ed.2d 575 (1988); that his right to the assistance of competent mental health experts was denied; and that he is insane to be executed, which is a premature claim at this stage. 2006These include Garcia's claims that he is entitled to retroactive relief under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); that he is innocent of the death penalty; that Florida's system of lethal injection is unconstitutional; that the trial court's finding of the prior conviction aggravator violated Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578 , 108 S.Ct. 1981 , 100 L.Ed.2d 575 (1988); that his right to the assistance of competent mental health experts was denied; and that he is insane to be executed, which is a premature claim at this stage. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2006These include Garcia's claims that he is entitled to retroactive relief under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); that he is innocent of the death penalty; that Florida's system of lethal injection is unconstitutional; that the trial court's finding of the prior conviction aggravator violated Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578 , 108 S.Ct. 1981 , 100 L.Ed.2d 575 (1988); that his right to the assistance of competent mental health experts was denied; and that he is insane to be executed, which is a premature claim at this stage. 2006These include Garcia's claims that he is entitled to retroactive relief under Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002); that he is innocent of the death penalty; that Florida's system of lethal injection is unconstitutional; that the trial court's finding of the prior conviction aggravator violated Johnson v. Mississippi, 486 U.S. 578 , 108 S.Ct. 1981 , 100 L.Ed.2d 575 (1988); that his right to the assistance of competent mental health experts was denied; and that he is insane to be executed, which is a premature claim at this stage. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.