Cimino v. US SEC. Ins. Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reasoning that when a PIP examination is necessary, the relationship is clearly adversarial and finding the presence of a third party not precluded under the statute or contract

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• US SEC. Ins. Co. v. Cimino
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2000-03-09· cited 23×
• Lunceford v. Florida Cent. R. Co., Inc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1999-04-09· cited 10×
• State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Grove
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1999-05-07· cited 1×
• State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Grove
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2000-09-07· cited 1×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Jacksonville v. NAEGELE OUTDOOR ADV.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1994-03-30· cited 67×
• Bartell v. McCarrick
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1986-12-24· cited 29×
• Adelman Steel Corp. v. Winter
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1992-12-31· cited 19×
• Toucet v. Big Bend Moving & Storage, Inc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1991-06-13· cited 13×
• Reed v. Reed
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1994-10-17· cited 8×
• Klipper v. Govt. Employees Ins. Co.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1990-08-01· cited 4×
• McClennan v. American Building Maintenance
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1995-01-17· cited 4×
• Perez v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1990-09-12· cited 3×