27 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1904–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hodge v. Stategreen2 sentences2025Co. v. SimonMed Imaging, 363 So. 3d 1196 , 1201 n.3 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023). 14 section 790.01 and consideration of its structure, the chapter of the Florida Statutes that governs firearms and other weapons, and the legal precedent on this issue.” Id.; see also Hodge v. State, 866 So. 2d 1270, 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“If the exception appears in the enacting clause, the burden lies with the State to prove that the defendant is not within the exception; but, if the exception is contained in a subsequent clause or statute, that is a matter of defense requiring the defendant to put forth some evide 2017Through its ‘shall-issue’ permitting scheme, Florida has provided a viable alternative outlet to open firearms carry which gives practical effect to its citizens’ exercise of their Second Amendment rights.” Id. at 226. -8- Addressing the other two certified questions, the Fourth District concluded that under Hodge v. State, 866 So. 2d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), since “the exceptions are not in the enacting clause of section 790.053, but are contained within a separate statute altogether,” the exceptions are affirmative defenses. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2004See State v. Thompson, 390 So.2d 715, 716 (Fla.1980); Stevens v. State, 680 So.2d 569, 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(holding that an exception to the theft statute was a defense to the crime as it was not set forth in the enacting clause, but in a subsequent subsection of the statute), aff'd, 694 So.2d 731 (Fla.1997). 2001The opposite result was reached in State v. Thompson, 390 So.2d 715 (Fla.1980) and State v. Hicks, 421 So.2d 510 (Fla.1982). | 1 | 3 |
Dale Norman v. Stategreen2 sentences2020See Norman v. State, 159 So. 3d 205, 226 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“If the exception appears in the enacting clause, the burden lies with the State to prove that the defendant is not within the exception; but, if the exception is contained in a subsequent clause or statute, that is a matter of defense requiring the defendant to put forth some evidence in support thereof.”) (citation omitted). 2017Norman, 159 So. 3d at 226 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2001The opposite result was reached in State v. Thompson, 390 So.2d 715 (Fla.1980) and State v. Hicks, 421 So.2d 510 (Fla.1982). 1983See also State v. Hicks, 421 So.2d 510 (Fla. 1982), interpreting the burglary statute, where the court found that the word "unless," as used in section 810.02(1), was a qualifier to the primary sentence of the statute, separating the consent phrase from the enacting clause and making consent an affirmative defense to burglary. | 1 | 2 |
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. D'Alembertegreen2 sentences1923See Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. D’Alembert, 39 Fla. 25 , 21 South. 1904Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. D’Alemberte, 39 Fla. 25 , 21 South. | 1 | 2 |
In Re: Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases-Report 2017-10.green1 sentence2020Our conclusion also is consistent with our supreme court’s September 2018 amendment of Standard Jury Instruction (Criminal) 10.1, “to include a third element that requires the State to prove that the defendant did not have a license to carry a concealed weapon or firearm at the time he or she did the carrying.” In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases – Report 2017-10, 253 So. 3d 1040, 1041 (Fla. 2018). | 1 | 1 |
Royal v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Accord Royal v. State, 784 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robargegreen1 sentence2010Generally, for a statutory exception, such as a license, to constitute a defense under Florida law, the exception “must be in a clause subsequent to the enacting clause of a statute.” State v. Robarge, 450 So.2d 855, 856 (Fla.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Stevens v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See State v. Thompson, 390 So.2d 715, 716 (Fla.1980); Stevens v. State, 680 So.2d 569, 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(holding that an exception to the theft statute was a defense to the crime as it was not set forth in the enacting clause, but in a subsequent subsection of the statute), aff'd, 694 So.2d 731 (Fla.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Salters v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Salters v. State, 758 So.2d 667 (Fla.2000); State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Benitez v. Stategreen1 sentence1983See also Benitez v. State, 172 So.2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). | 1 | 1 |
County of Hillsborough v. Pricegreen1 sentence1980See Hillsborough County v. Price, 149 So.2d 912 (2 D.C.A. | 1 | 1 |
Cragin v. Ocean & Lake Realty Co.green1 sentence1975See Cragin v. Ocean and Lake Realty Company, 133 So. 569 (Fla. 1931); State v. State Racing Commission, 112 So.2d 825 (Fla. 1959). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. State Racing Commission
green
2 sentences1984Futch v. Adams, 36 So. 575 , 577 (Fla. 1904); Farrey v. Bettendorf, 96 So.2d 889 , 893 (Fla. 1957); Florida Jai Alai, Inc. v. State Racing Commission, 112 So.2d 825 , 829 (Fla. 1959). 1975See Cragin v. Ocean and Lake Realty Company, 133 So. 569 (Fla. 1931); State v. State Racing Commission, 112 So.2d 825 (Fla. 1959). | 2 | 1975–1984 |
Robarge v. State
green
2 sentences1984Therefore, the district court correctly held that "the absence of a license is an essential element of the crime of possession of a firearm without a license." 432 So.2d at 672 . 1983In Robarge v. State, 432 So.2d 669 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), relied upon by appellant, the statute there construed clearly contains the exception within the enacting clause and is, therefore, distinguishable from the statute sub judice. | 2 | 1983–1984 |
Farrey v. Bettendorf
green
2 sentences1984Futch v. Adams, 36 So. 575 , 577 (Fla. 1904); Farrey v. Bettendorf, 96 So.2d 889 , 893 (Fla. 1957); Florida Jai Alai, Inc. v. State Racing Commission, 112 So.2d 825 , 829 (Fla. 1959). 1980See Futch v. Adams, 36 So. 575 . 577 (Fla. 1904) (the office of a proviso is to restrain the enacting clause; to except something which would otherwise be within it, or in some manner to modify it), and Farrey v. Bettendorf, 96 So.2d 889 , 893 (Fla. 1957). | 2 | 1980–1984 |
Berger v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1980Accord : Berger v. Jackson, 23 So.2d 265 , at 268 (Fla. 1945), holding that a `section heading' inserted by the Legislature is `part of the law itself and not in any wise extrinsic to the enacting clause,' and AGO 057-314. 1975Further, the subtitle of s. 1, Ch. 73-169, Laws of Florida, part of which was enacted as s. 112.061 (3)(a), F.S., specifies "Authority to incur travel expenses." (Emphasis supplied.) See Berger v. Jackson, 23 So.2d 265 (Fla. 1945), and AGO 057-314 to the effect that such subtitles are part of and not extrinsic to the enacting clause. | 2 | 1975–1980 |
In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor
green
2 sentences1938In re Advisory Opinion, 43 Fla. 305 , 31 So. 348 . 1930R. 343; or was passed without an enacting clause, In Re Advisory Opinion to Governor, 43 Fla. 305 , 31 So. | 2 | 1930–1938 |
State v. Stevens
green
1 sentence2004See State v. Thompson, 390 So.2d 715, 716 (Fla.1980); Stevens v. State, 680 So.2d 569, 570 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(holding that an exception to the theft statute was a defense to the crime as it was not set forth in the enacting clause, but in a subsequent subsection of the statute), aff'd, 694 So.2d 731 (Fla.1997). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2001See Salters v. State, 758 So.2d 667 (Fla.2000); State v. Johnson, 616 So.2d 1 (Fla.1993). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Fuchs v. Wilkinson
green
1 sentence1998A clause engrafted on a preceding enactment for the purpose of restraining or modifying the enacting clause or of excepting something from its operation which would otherwise have been within it." Id. at 1225. [4] Fuchs, supra, determined the effective date of Amendment 10, Article VII, Section 4(c). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Jackson
green
1 sentence1982In reaching its determination, the district court recognized that this Court, in State v. Jackson, 281 So.2d 353 (Fla. 1973), held that under the then-existing burglary statute non-consent to entry was not an essential element of burglary, but was a sub-element of breaking. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Baeumel v. State
green
1 sentence1982Great reliance is placed on the rule of statutory construction announced almost 100 years ago in Baeumel v. State, 26 Fla. 71 , 7 So. 371 , 372 (1890), wherein the Supreme Court stated: [I]f there is an exception in the enacting clause, the party pleading must show that his adversary is not within the exception, but if there be an exception in a subsequent clause, or subsequent statute, that is [sic] matter of defense, and is to be shown by the other party. *579 Appellant argues that the lack of ownership or control of the field burned is an exception in the enacting clause and that the burden | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Thomas v. Askew
green
1 sentence1980The enacting clause of every law shall read: "Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:". [5] We recognize that our decision in Thomas v. Askew, 270 So.2d 707 (Fla. 1972), could be interpreted as affording the legislature greater latitude than the above rule would permit. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Therrell v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence1977Therrell v. Smith, 168 So. 389 (Fla. 1936); State v. Nourse, 340 So.2d 966 (3 D.C.A. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Nourse
green
1 sentence1977Therrell v. Smith, 168 So. 389 (Fla. 1936); State v. Nourse, 340 So.2d 966 (3 D.C.A. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Hall v. Ellis
neutral
1 sentence1953The medical terms used in the statute in describing na-turopathy are strange to common speech, and the proviso which follows and limits them must be given controlling effect. ‘The office of a proviso, generally, is either to except something from the enacting clause, or to qualify or restrain its generality, or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation of it, as extending to cases not intended by the legislature to be brought within its purview.’ ” We are not unmindful of the affirmance by the Court without opinion of the case of In re Complaint of Melser, 160 Fla. 333 , 32 So.2d 74 | 1 | 1953–1953 |
In Re: Complaint of Melser
neutral
1 sentence1953The medical terms used in the statute in describing na-turopathy are strange to common speech, and the proviso which follows and limits them must be given controlling effect. ‘The office of a proviso, generally, is either to except something from the enacting clause, or to qualify or restrain its generality, or to exclude some possible ground of misinterpretation of it, as extending to cases not intended by the legislature to be brought within its purview.’ ” We are not unmindful of the affirmance by the Court without opinion of the case of In re Complaint of Melser, 160 Fla. 333 , 32 So.2d 74 | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. green | 1 | 1918–1918 |
State ex rel. Loftin v. McMillan
neutral
1 sentence1918Where a statute contains the rule expressly enacted in Section 14 of this Act, as set out herein, the judicial rule of construction announced in 50 Fla. 127 ; 55 Fla. 246 ; 184 U. S. 540 , is not permissible. | 1 | 1918–1918 |
State v. Patterson
green
1 sentence1918Where a statute contains the rule expressly enacted in Section 14 of this Act, as set out herein, the judicial rule of construction announced in 50 Fla. 127 ; 55 Fla. 246 ; 184 U. S. 540 , is not permissible. | 1 | 1918–1918 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.