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 1999–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Branca v. City of Miramargreen2 sentences2019See Echeverri, 991 So. 3d at 797 (recognizing the public funds exception); Branca v. City of Miramar, 634 So. 2d 604, 606 (Fla. 1994) (same); Island Resorts Invs, Inc., 189 So. 3d at 922 (same). 2016See § 196.199, Fla. Stat. (“Government property exemption”); Echeverri, 991 So.2d at 797 (“[C]aution[ing] that past precedent indicates that the public funds exception is a narrow exception.”); Branca v. City of Miramar, 634 So.2d 604, 606 (Fla.1994) (recognizing the public funds exception when the law requires the expenditure of public funds); Santa Rosa Cty. v. Admin. | 2 | 2 |
Barr v. Wattsgreen2 sentences2005However, in affirming the public funds exception, we stated that "in the absence of such controlling public necessity, we think that the public interest will best be served by channeling all such attacks on the validity of statutes through the duly-elected public officer whose duty it is to protect the public interest in this respect — the Attorney General of this state." Barr, 70 So.2d at 351 . 2005However, in affirming the public funds exception, we stated that "in the absence of such controlling public necessity, we think that the public interest will best be served by channeling all such attacks on the validity of statutes through the duly-elected public officer whose duty it is to protect the public interest in this respect — the Attorney General of this state." Barr, 70 So.2d at 351 . | 1 | 2 |
Island Resorts Investments, Inc. v. Chris Jones, Property Appraiser etc.green2 sentences2019See Echeverri, 991 So. 3d at 797 (recognizing the public funds exception); Branca v. City of Miramar, 634 So. 2d 604, 606 (Fla. 1994) (same); Island Resorts Invs, Inc., 189 So. 3d at 922 (same). 2019See Echeverri, 991 So. 3d at 797 (recognizing the public funds exception); Branca v. City of Miramar, 634 So. 2d 604, 606 (Fla. 1994) (same); Island Resorts Invs, Inc., 189 So. 3d at 922 (same). | 1 | 1 |
CROSSINGS AT FLEMING ISLAND COMMUNITY DEV. DIST. v. Echeverrigreen2 sentences2016See § 196.199, Fla. Stat. (“Government property exemption”); Echeverri, 991 So.2d at 797 (“[C]aution[ing] that past precedent indicates that the public funds exception is a narrow exception.”); Branca v. City of Miramar, 634 So.2d 604, 606 (Fla.1994) (recognizing the public funds exception when the law requires the expenditure of public funds); Santa Rosa Cty. v. Admin. 2016See § 196.199, Fla. Stat. (“Government property exemption”); Echeverri, 991 So.2d at 797 (“[C]aution[ing] that past precedent indicates that the public funds exception is a narrow exception.”); Branca v. City of Miramar, 634 So.2d 604, 606 (Fla.1994) (recognizing the public funds exception when the law requires the expenditure of public funds); Santa Rosa Cty. v. Admin. | 1 | 1 |
Department of Educ. v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., Dep't of Educ. v. Lewis, 416 So.2d 455, 459 (Fla.1982) (holding that public funds exception did not confer standing to challenge constitutionality of proviso in appropriations bill upon Department of Education, State Board of Education, and Commissioner of Education in his official capacity, and distinguishing such entities and officials from comptroller, who "as the state's chief officer for disbursement of funds, would have standing to challenge a proviso in an appropriations bill"). | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Harrell v. Conegreen1 sentence2005See id. at 857. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Pensacola v. King
green
1 sentence2005The scope of this public funds exception was tested in City of Pensacola v. King, 47 So.2d 317 (Fla.1950). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.