Harrell v. Harrell

How courts have described this case

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

• “The mailbox rule, which applies to prisoners, has no application here.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Strax Rejuvenation & Aesthetics Institute, Inc. v. Shield
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2009-12-16· cited 4×
• Norman Reiz and Renee Ezra v. Florida Department of Revenue
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2025-05-14

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Santosky v. Kramer
  Supreme Court· 1982-02-22· cited 9,761×
• Troxel v. Granville
  Supreme Court· 2000-06-05· cited 6,943×
• Houston v. Lack
  Supreme Court· 1988-06-24· cited 6,563×
• Haag v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1992-01-02· cited 187×
• Florida Dept. of Children and Fam. v. Fl
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2004-07-08· cited 99×
• Jb v. Fla. Dept. of Children and Fam. Services
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2000-09-28· cited 67×
• Raysor v. Raysor
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-02-23· cited 58×
• Griffin v. Sistuenck
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2002-05-02· cited 34×
• Millinger v. BROWARD CO. MENTAL HEALTH DIV.
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1996-03-14· cited 30×
• Coca Cola Foods v. Cordero
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1991-11-04· cited 22×
• Blake v. RMS Holding Corp.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1977-01-18· cited 17×
• In Re Report of Fam. Ct. Steering Comm.
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2001-05-03· cited 13×
• Shields v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1987-10-22· cited 8×
• Wimbush v. Pasco County Sheriff's Office
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-10-18· cited 5×
• Martin v. Department of Revenue ex rel. Martin
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-10-09· cited 5×