Scotty's Hardware, Inc. v. Northcutt

How courts have described this case

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

• distinguishing Honeycutt because the applicable statute in Honeycutt required the e/c to provide attendant care benefits even if it had not been requested

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Olmo v. Rehabcare Starmed/SRS
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2006-05-31· cited 5×
• MD TRANSPORT v. Paschen
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2008-11-21· cited 3×

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Socolow v. Flanigans Enterprises
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-05-18· cited 13×
• Honeycutt v. RG Butlers Dairy
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1988-05-20· cited 10×
• McLymont v. a Temporary Solution
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1999-07-22· cited 3×
• Walt Disney World Co. v. McCrea
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-04-17· cited 2×
• City of West Palm Beach v. Lewis
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2001-03-14· cited 1×
• City of Miami v. Arostegui
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-01-08· cited 1×

Other cases named Scotty's Hardware, Inc. v. Northcutt

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Scotty's Hardware, Inc. v. Northcutt
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-11-30