Saidi v. State (2003)

green · 19 citation events across 4 courts. Showing the 11 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 11

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green Balkaran v. State (2007)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2 citations in this opinion

When a question is raised concerning the relevancy of a special condition of probation, the record must support the imposition of the condition." Saidi v. State, 845 So.2d 1022, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (internal citations omitted).

internal citations omitted

green Illiana Grigoriou v. State of Florida (2025)

Quote Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Because section 836.10 deals only with ‘threats’ to commit a violent act, it does not violate … First Amendment rights.”) (internal citation omitted); Puy v. State, 294 So. 3d 930 , 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (“Because there was a question of material fact to be decided by the factfinder—whether the posting was a threat under the statute—the trial court correctly denied appellant’s motion to dismiss.”); Saidi v. State, 845 So. 2d 1022, 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“[S]ection 836.1…

“[S]ection 836.10 is not vague.”

green B.W.B., A Child v. State of Florida (2023)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

The trial court also found section 836.10 did not require “the actual intent to do harm or the ability to carry out the threat.” See Saidi v. State, 845 So. 2d 1022, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

green T.R.W., A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2023)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

The court ruled that section 836.10(1), did not require “the actual intent to do harm or the ability to carry out the threat,” citing Saidi v. State, 845 So. 2d 1022, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

green N.D., A JUVENILE v. State (2020)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

Saidi v. State, 845 So. 2d 1022, 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (holding section 836.10 is not constitutionally infirm for overbreadth); Reilly v. State, Dep’t of Corrections, 847 F. Supp. 951 (M.D.

holding section 836.10 is not constitutionally infirm for overbreadth

green Williams v. State (2016)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: cf.

Cf. Saidi v. State, 845 So.2d 1022, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“When a question is raised concerning the relevancy of a special condition of probation, the record must support the imposition of the condition.” (citing McCarthren v. State, 635 So.2d 1005, 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994))).

“When a question is raised concerning the relevancy of a special condition of probation, the record must support the imposition of the condition.” (citing McCarthren v. State, 635 So.2d 1005, 1006 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994))

green Bell v. State (2015)

Rule Authority · Fla. Dist. Ct. App.

As a matter of “grace ... [probation is also] subject to the trial court’s discretion.” Saidi v. State, 845 So.2d 1022, 1028 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003).

green Lansdell v. State (2007)

Rule Authority · Ala. Crim. App.

See Allen v. State, 759 P.2d 541, 545 (Alaska Ct.App.1988); In re Ryan A., 202 Ariz. 19 , 39 P.3d 543 (Ariz.Ct.App.2002); People v. Maciel, 113 Cal.App.4th 679, 685 , 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 628, 634 (2003); State v. Crudup, 81 Conn.App. 248, 263 , 838 A.2d 1053, 1064 (2004); Saidi v. State, 845 So.2d 1022, 1026 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2003); Reilly v. State, 847 F.Supp. 951, 958 (M.D.Fla.1994); Lanthrip v. State, 235 Ga. 10 , 218 S.E.2d 771 (1975); Masson v. Slaton, 320 F.Supp. 669, 672-73 …

green Wilfong v. Commonwealth (2004)

Rule Authority · Ky. Ct. App.

See United States v. Myers, 864 F.Supp. 794, 800 (N.D.Ill.1994); Saidi v. State, 845 So.2d 1022, 1028 (Fla.App.2003); and Commonwealth v. Pike, 428 Mass. 393 , 701 N.E.2d 951, 959 (1998). 61 .

green Daniel Julio Dominguez v. State of Florida (2026)

Cited (see also) · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: compare

Compare Saidi v. State, 845 So. 2d 1022, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (holding that section 836.10 did not require “the actual intent to do harm or the ability to carry out the threat”), with T.R.W. v. State, 363 So. 3d 1081 , 1085 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (holding that section 836.10 does include a mens rea element); N.D. v. State, 315 So. 3d 102 , 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (same); Smith v. State, 532 So. 2d 50, 52 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988) (same).

holding that section 836.10 did not require “the actual intent to do harm or the ability to carry out the threat”

green O'Leary v. State (2013)

Cited · Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Saidi v. State, 845 So.2d 1022, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Suggs v. State, 72 So.3d 145, 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).