Hicks v. Hicks

How courts have described this case

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

• “[W]e think failure to fully comply with [the rule regarding substitution] makes pleadings filed by an attorney voidable and subject to a motion to strike.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2005-09-29· cited 84×
• Westside EKG Associates v. Foundation Health
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-05-04· cited 12×
• Thomas v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-08-25· cited 3×
• Blackpool Associates, Ltd. v. SM-106, Ltd.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2003-03-05· cited 2×
• In the Interest of A.T.H.
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-12-14· cited 1×
• Sc. Read, Inc. v. Seminole County School Board
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2006-07-14· cited 1×
• Martini v. Young
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-11-18

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• GBB Investments, Inc. v. Hinterkopf
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1977-03-01· cited 28×
• Bortz v. Bortz
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-05-20· cited 18×
• Lehmann v. Cloniger
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1974-05-16· cited 18×
• Pasco County v. QUAIL HOLLOW PROPERTIES
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1997-05-02· cited 5×
• Baker v. Grant
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1986-10-02· cited 2×