5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Florida Hurricane Protection & Awning, Inc. v. Pastinagreen1 sentence2021Instead, that aspect of section 57.105(7) creates reciprocity where the “contract contains a provision allowing attorney's fees to a party when he or she is required to take any action to enforce the contract. . . .” 9 8 This likely refers to a statement of our sister court in Florida Hurricane Protection and Awning, Inc. v. Pastina, 43 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010): “[T]he purpose of the statute is simply to ensure that each party gets what it gave: the ability to recover fees in litigation arising under the contractual provisions.” (quoting Inland Dredging Co. v. The Panama City Port A | 1 | 1 |
Inland Dredging Co. v. Panama City Port Authoritygreen1 sentence2021Instead, that aspect of section 57.105(7) creates reciprocity where the “contract contains a provision allowing attorney's fees to a party when he or she is required to take any action to enforce the contract. . . .” 9 8 This likely refers to a statement of our sister court in Florida Hurricane Protection and Awning, Inc. v. Pastina, 43 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010): “[T]he purpose of the statute is simply to ensure that each party gets what it gave: the ability to recover fees in litigation arising under the contractual provisions.” (quoting Inland Dredging Co. v. The Panama City Port A | 1 | 1 |
Champlain Towers v. Dudleygreen1 sentence1992NOTES [1] This court in Champlain Towers v. Dudley, 481 So.2d 532, 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), in addressing the duties imposed by the statute, stated, in part: "Although the statute imposes no requirement that claimant state grounds for objection, it clearly does impose the duty of a continuing good faith request for another authorization, to which carrier must in turn respond with reasonable alternatives until a `deadlock' requires the deputy's intervention. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bober v. DIJOLS
green
1 sentence2010Levey observed that in the context of section 105.031, the term “name” “connotes any legal form of name the person is entitled to use and have printed on the ballot.” 990 So.2d at 693 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hausman v. Rudkin
green
1 sentence1989However, as the fourth district court determined in Hausman , “bona fide” as used in the statute imposes the requirement that “the agricultural use be real, actual, of a genuine nature — as opposed to a sham or deception.” 268 So.2d at 409 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Wackenhut Corp. v. Freilich
green
1 sentence1986Communications and actions of the parties in this case (as in Wackenhut, supra ) show claimant's abiding intention to accept only his originally *534 specified choice of caretakers. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.