5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2001 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mills v. Stategreen2 sentences2001Mills v. State, 620 So.2d 1006, 1008 (Fla.1993). 1999Mills v. State, 620 So.2d 1006, 1008 (Fla.1993). *5 Section 924.051(7), Florida Statutes (1997), adopted as a part of the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, provides: In a direct appeal or a collateral proceeding, the party challenging the judgment or order of the trial court has the burden of demonstrating that a prejudicial error occurred in the trial court. | 2 | 2 |
Purvis v. DEPT. OF PROFESSIONAL REG.green2 sentences1989In Purvis v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Veterinary Medicine, 461 So.2d 134, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), this court rejected the agency's substituted finding of fact, in support of which the Board had argued, "consideration of the ultimate facts in this matter were less questions of witness credibility or factual issues susceptible of ordinary methods of proof, and more subjects which the Board may rightfully claim very special insights." The court found that the Board had failed to state with particularity any reasons for rejecting the hearing officer's finding that "there wa 1989In Purvis v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Veterinary Medicine, 461 So.2d 134, 136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), this court rejected the agency's substituted finding of fact, in support of which the Board had argued, "consideration of the ultimate facts in this matter were less questions of witness credibility or factual issues susceptible of ordinary methods of proof, and more subjects which the Board may rightfully claim very special insights." The court found that the Board had failed to state with particularity any reasons for rejecting the hearing officer's finding that "there wa | 1 | 1 |
Johnston v. Dept. of Professional Regulationgreen2 sentences1989The record before the hearing officer contains no mention of this source or these definitions. [13] In Johnston v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 456 So.2d 939, 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), this court reversed an agency order based upon the Board's substituted findings of fact, noting that the circumstances "do not present a unique question that is not susceptible of ordinary methods of proof, resolution of which falls within the special expertise of the board to the point that the board may overturn the findings of the hearing officer when those findings are ba 1989The record before the hearing officer contains no mention of this source or these definitions. [13] In Johnston v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, 456 So.2d 939, 943 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), this court reversed an agency order based upon the Board's substituted findings of fact, noting that the circumstances "do not present a unique question that is not susceptible of ordinary methods of proof, resolution of which falls within the special expertise of the board to the point that the board may overturn the findings of the hearing officer when those findings are ba | 1 | 1 |
Fears v. Lunsfordgreen1 sentence1975I read this Court's majority opinion to mean that the language of our rule authorizes a re-litigation of an issue already tried and found wanting as a matter of law. [4] I fail to see such an authorization in either the language or the rationale of the Rule. [5] NOTES [1] Fears v. Lunsford, 295 So.2d 323, 325 (Fla.App. 1st 1974). [2] The notice of dismissal must be stated in the record before a hearing on motion for summary judgment or before the retirement of the jury in a jury case or submission of a nonjury case to the court. [3] Modular Construction, Inc. v. Owen, 270 So.2d 753 (Fla.App.3d | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dept. of Health and Rehab. Services v. Johnson & Johnson Home Health Care, Inc.
green
2 sentences1985Johnson is distinguishable because the stated purpose of the rule of 300 in that case was to halt the proliferation of home health agencies, and the record before the hearing officer showed that the rule of 300 "was designed to protect the existing industry from competition." Id. at 362 . 1985Furthermore, no reasonable relationship was shown between the numerical threshhold and the "health, morals, safety or welfare of the public." Id. at 363 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Modular Construction, Inc. v. Owen
neutral
1 sentence1975I read this Court's majority opinion to mean that the language of our rule authorizes a re-litigation of an issue already tried and found wanting as a matter of law. [4] I fail to see such an authorization in either the language or the rationale of the Rule. [5] NOTES [1] Fears v. Lunsford, 295 So.2d 323, 325 (Fla.App. 1st 1974). [2] The notice of dismissal must be stated in the record before a hearing on motion for summary judgment or before the retirement of the jury in a jury case or submission of a nonjury case to the court. [3] Modular Construction, Inc. v. Owen, 270 So.2d 753 (Fla.App.3d | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.