Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1989–2001 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Rollinson does not have standing to make a constitutional challenge to his sentence pursuant to the Act on grounds that it violates the single subject requirement of Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution because "his offense[s] occurred subsequent to the re-enactment of the chapter law into the Florida Statutes." Williams v. State, 729 So.2d 1005, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). 1999Rol-linson does not have standing to make a constitutional challenge to his sentence pursuant to the Act on grounds that it violates the single subject requirement of Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution because “his offense[s] occurred subsequent to the re-enactment of the chapter law into the Florida Statutes.” Williams v. State, 729 So.2d 1005, 1006 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). | 2 | 2 |
Thompson v. Stategreen2 sentences1999Anthony Williams argues that his sentence as a violent career criminal under Chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, is erroneous because the law violates the single subject requirement of Article III, Section 6 of the Florida Constitution, as held in Thompson v. State, 708 So.2d 315, 317 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, 717 So.2d 538 (Fla.1998). 1998Appellant asserts that chapter 95-182, Laws of Florida, violates the single subject requirement of Article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution, as the second district has recently held in Thompson v. State, 708 So.2d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. granted, 717 So.2d 538 (Fla.1998). | 1 | 2 |
Heggs v. Stategreen2 sentences2001In Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2000), the supreme court held that chapter 95-184, Laws of Florida, which enacted the changes resulting in the 1995 sentencing guidelines, violated the single subject requirement of Article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. 2001He later withdrew that brief and filed, on March 8, 2000, an amended initial brief, arguing for the first time that, as recognized in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), the trial court had committed fundamental error by sentencing him in accordance with the 1995 sentencing guidelines as the chapter law enacting the 1995 changes to the sentencing guidelines had violated the single subject requirement of Article III, section 6 of the Florida Constitution. | 1 | 1 |
Higgs v. Stategreen1 sentence1999See Higgs v. State, 695 So.2d 872 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence1999Once reenacted as a portion of the Florida Statutes, a chapter law is no longer subject to challenge on the grounds that it violates the single subject requirements of Article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution." State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla.1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trapp v. State
green
1 sentence2001APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING First, appellant argues that the opinion's finding that he should have filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion raising his single subject challenge in the trial court prior to raising it in his appellate brief ignores the fact that the law in this district at the time he would have had to file such a motion was as stated in Trapp v. State, 736 So.2d 736 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), which held that the chapter law enacting the changes resulting in the 1995 sentencing guidelines was not violative of the single subject requirement of Article III, sectio | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Maddox v. State
green
1 sentence2001Second, appellant argues that this court's opinion also ignores the fact that supreme court case law has long held that the facial validity of a statute can be raised for the first time on appeal in a criminal case where the error is fundamental and that nothing in the supreme court's *30 decision in Maddox v. State, 760 So.2d 89 (Fla.2000) changed this principle. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Lee
green
1 sentence1989We disagree for the reasons set forth in Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1987) and State v. Lee, 356 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1978), but join the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal [1] in certifying the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Smith v. Department of Ins.
green
1 sentence1989We disagree for the reasons set forth in Smith v. Department of Insurance, 507 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1987) and State v. Lee, 356 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1978), but join the Second and Fourth District Courts of Appeal [1] in certifying the following question to the Florida Supreme Court: DOES SECTION 893.13, FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) VIOLATE THE ONE SUBJECT RULE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION? | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.