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 1 courts 1978–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beachgreen1 sentence2022Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Jobear, Inc. v. Dewind Machinery Co.green1 sentence2022Co., 402 So. 2d 1357, 1358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (holding that where a restrictive endorsement could be interpreted as releasing only one of two separate and distinct claims—one for rent and the other for parts and labor—the creditor’s acceptance of the check did not constitute an accord and satisfaction as to both claims). 11 Both the Language of the Master Contract and an Accord and Satisfaction Barred CCI’s Claims The trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of the College because CCI’s claims were barred by both the common law doctrine of accord and satisfaction and the plain l | 1 | 1 |
White v. Stategreen1 sentence1994White v. State, 619 So.2d 429, 431 (Fla. 1st DCA) (appellant's failure to obtain and maintain full-time employment within 30 days of sentencing was invalid condition of probation), rev. den., 626 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1993); Johnson v. State, 636 So.2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (requirement that appellant be gainfully employed no fewer than 35 hours a week impermissibly failed to account for possibility that unavoidable outside events could restrict employment options to fewer than 35 hours a week); Evans v. State, 608 So.2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (reversing for modification a condition of community c | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Perezgreen1 sentence1982Duke v. Reconstruction Finance Gorp., 209 F.2d 204 (4th Cir.1954); United States v. Houff, 202 F.Supp. 471 (W.D.Va.1962); United States v. Perez, 528 F.Supp. 206, 208 (D.P.R.1981). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. State Ex Rel. Mitchellgreen1 sentence1978See Thompson v. Mitchell, 353 So.2d 664 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walls v. State
green
1 sentence1994White v. State, 619 So.2d 429, 431 (Fla. 1st DCA) (appellant's failure to obtain and maintain full-time employment within 30 days of sentencing was invalid condition of probation), rev. den., 626 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1993); Johnson v. State, 636 So.2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (requirement that appellant be gainfully employed no fewer than 35 hours a week impermissibly failed to account for possibility that unavoidable outside events could restrict employment options to fewer than 35 hours a week); Evans v. State, 608 So.2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (reversing for modification a condition of community c | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence1994White v. State, 619 So.2d 429, 431 (Fla. 1st DCA) (appellant's failure to obtain and maintain full-time employment within 30 days of sentencing was invalid condition of probation), rev. den., 626 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1993); Johnson v. State, 636 So.2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (requirement that appellant be gainfully employed no fewer than 35 hours a week impermissibly failed to account for possibility that unavoidable outside events could restrict employment options to fewer than 35 hours a week); Evans v. State, 608 So.2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (reversing for modification a condition of community c | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Evans v. State
green
1 sentence1994White v. State, 619 So.2d 429, 431 (Fla. 1st DCA) (appellant's failure to obtain and maintain full-time employment within 30 days of sentencing was invalid condition of probation), rev. den., 626 So.2d 208 (Fla. 1993); Johnson v. State, 636 So.2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (requirement that appellant be gainfully employed no fewer than 35 hours a week impermissibly failed to account for possibility that unavoidable outside events could restrict employment options to fewer than 35 hours a week); Evans v. State, 608 So.2d 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (reversing for modification a condition of community c | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Neal v. Bryant
green
1 sentence1992Neal v. Bryant, 149 So.2d 529 (Fla.1962) (the word “shall” in statute normally has a mandatory connotation). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Duke v. Reconstruction Finance Corp.
green
1 sentence1982Duke v. Reconstruction Finance Gorp., 209 F.2d 204 (4th Cir.1954); United States v. Houff, 202 F.Supp. 471 (W.D.Va.1962); United States v. Perez, 528 F.Supp. 206, 208 (D.P.R.1981). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
United States v. Houff
green
1 sentence1982Duke v. Reconstruction Finance Gorp., 209 F.2d 204 (4th Cir.1954); United States v. Houff, 202 F.Supp. 471 (W.D.Va.1962); United States v. Perez, 528 F.Supp. 206, 208 (D.P.R.1981). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.