5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Irickgreen2 sentences1988In Re Estate of Grant, 433 So.2d 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). 1987See also Williams v. Inch, 433 So.2d 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Trawick, “To Reply Or Not to Reply?,” 47 Fla.B.J. 703 (1973). 1 Accordingly, plaintiffs failure to file a reply to the affirmative defense had the effect of denying the allegations of the defense. | 1 | 2 |
Abston v. Bryangreen1 sentence2018Abston v. Bryan, 519 So. 2d 1125, 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Kitchen, 404 So. 2d at 205 . | 1 | 1 |
Villarreal v. Stategreen1 sentence1987A reply to an affirmative defense may be thought of as “an affirmative defense to an affirmative defense,” Reno v. Adventist Health Systems/Sunbelt, Inc., 516 So.2d 63, 64-65 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), and [i]n order to be entitled to summary judgment it [is] incumbent upon the plaintiff to overcome [an] affirmative defense by presenting evidence sufficient to demonstrate conclusively that the issue ... raised by [the affirmative defense] was not present.... [I]f the evidence raises any doubt on an issue of material fact, or is such as will permit different reasonable inferences bearing on the existe | 1 | 1 |
FIRST MORTG., INC. v. Boulevard Nat. Bank of Miamigreen1 sentence1987First Mortgage Investors v. Boulevard National Bank of Miami, 327 So.2d 830, 832 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Moore Meats, Inc. v. Strawn, in & for Seminole Cty.
green
2 sentences1987The reason for a reply to an affirmative defense is noted in Moore where the Florida Supreme Court said, “This [a reply] is necessary in order to lay a predicate for ... proofs [of an avoidance of an affirmative defense] so that the parties may prepare accordingly.” 313 So. 2d at 661 . 1981The rule specifically does not require a reply merely to deny the allegations of the defense or to show that the pleader lacks knowledge of the truth of those allegations." Id. at 661-662 . | 2 | 1981–1987 |
Kitchen v. Kitchen
green
1 sentence2018Abston v. Bryan, 519 So. 2d 1125, 1127 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Kitchen, 404 So. 2d at 205 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.