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.
21 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dorsey v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co., 911 So. 2d 1181, 1188 (Fla. 2005) (“[S]tare decisis counsels us to follow our precedents unless there has been ‘a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of the legal rule, or . . . an error in legal analysis.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting Dorsey v. State, 868 So. 2d 1192, 1199 (Fla. 2003))). 2018See Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co. , 911 So.2d 1181 , 1188 (Fla. 2005) ("[S]tare decisis counsels us to follow our precedents unless there has been 'a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of the legal rule, or ... an error in legal analysis.' " (emphasis added) (quoting Dorsey v. State , 868 So.2d 1192 , 1199 (Fla. 2003) ) ). | 9 | 10 |
Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co., Inc.green2 sentences2018See Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co. , 911 So.2d 1181 , 1188 (Fla. 2005) ("[S]tare decisis counsels us to follow our precedents unless there has been 'a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of the legal rule, or ... an error in legal analysis.' " (emphasis added) (quoting Dorsey v. State , 868 So.2d 1192 , 1199 (Fla. 2003) ) ). 2018The principle of stare decisis "counsels [the Court] to follow [its] precedents unless there has been 'a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of the legal rule, or ... an error in legal analysis.' " Valdes v. State , 3 So.3d 1067 , 1076 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co. , 911 So.2d 1181 , 1188 (Fla. 2005) ). | 9 | 9 |
Puryear v. Stategreen2 sentences2024OFR and the public can take heart that the “doctrine of stare decisis” prevails here, just as it does at the supreme court, which is to say it “bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, or where there has been an error in legal analysis.” Puryear v. State, 810 So. 2d 901, 905 (Fla. 2002) (internal citation omitted). 2014The doctrine is said to bend “where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule or where there has been an error in legal analysis.” Brown v. Nagelhout, 84 So. 3d 304, 309 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Puryear v. State, 810 So. 2d 901, 905 (Fla. 2002)). | 4 | 4 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla.1995); see also Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882, 890 (Fla.1998) (Wells, J., dissenting) (“[Ijntel-lectual honesty continues to demand that precedent be followed unless there has been a clear showing that the earlier decision was factually or legally erroneous or has not proven acceptable in actual practice.”). 2004See State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla.1995); see also Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882, 890 (Fla.1998) (Wells, J., dissenting) ("[I]ntellectual honesty continues to demand that precedent be followed unless there has been a clear showing that the earlier decision was factually or legally erroneous or has not proven acceptable in actual practice."). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Graygreen2 sentences2004See State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla.1995); see also Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882, 890 (Fla.1998) (Wells, J., dissenting) (“[Ijntel-lectual honesty continues to demand that precedent be followed unless there has been a clear showing that the earlier decision was factually or legally erroneous or has not proven acceptable in actual practice.”). 2004See State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla.1995); see also Brown v. State, 719 So.2d 882, 890 (Fla.1998) (Wells, J., dissenting) ("[I]ntellectual honesty continues to demand that precedent be followed unless there has been a clear showing that the earlier decision was factually or legally erroneous or has not proven acceptable in actual practice."). | 3 | 3 |
Weiand v. Stategreen2 sentences2006"The doctrine of stare decisis must bend when there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule." Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999). 2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) (“It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion....”). 2 Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis. | 2 | 5 |
Valdes v. Stategreen2 sentences2018The principle of stare decisis “counsels [the Court] to follow [its] precedents unless there has been ‘a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of the legal rule, or . . . an error in legal analysis.’ ” Valdes v. State, 3 So. 3d 1067, 1076 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co., 911 So. 2d 1181, 1188 (Fla. 2005)). 2018The principle of stare decisis "counsels [the Court] to follow [its] precedents unless there has been 'a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of the legal rule, or ... an error in legal analysis.' " Valdes v. State , 3 So.3d 1067 , 1076 (Fla. 2009) (quoting Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co. , 911 So.2d 1181 , 1188 (Fla. 2005) ). | 2 | 3 |
Chames v. DeMayogreen2 sentences2013See Valdes v. State, 3 So.3d 1067, 1077 (Fla.2009); Chames v. DeMayo, 972 So.2d 850, 855 (Fla.2007); Dorsey v. State, 868 So.2d 1192, 1199 (Fla.2003) (“[T]he doctrine of stare decisis ... yields only upon a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of the legal rule, or when there has been an error in legal analysis.”). 2008Cf. Chames v. DeMayo, 972 So.2d 850, 855 (Fla.2007) ("[T]he doctrine of stare decisis counsels us to follow our precedents unless there has been a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of the legal rule, or ... an error in legal analysis." (quoting Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co., Inc., 911 So.2d 1181, 1188 (Fla.2005)) (quotation marks omitted)); State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208, 217 (Fla.2006) ("Stare decisis yields `when an established rule of law has proven unacceptable or unworkable in practice.'" (quoting Allstate Indem. | 2 | 2 |
Muhammad v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) (“It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion....”). 2 Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis. 2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) ("It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again *1109 in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge's opinion. . . ."). [2] Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis. | 2 | 2 |
Tyson v. Mattairgreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) (“It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion....”). 2 Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis. 2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) ("It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again *1109 in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge's opinion. . . ."). [2] Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis. | 2 | 2 |
Payne v. Tennesseegreen1 sentence2018Nowhere mentioned in the plurality opinion is the test utilized by courts to determine when disregarding precedent is appropriate. - 14 - As the United States Supreme Court has explained, the principle of stare decisis “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. NAGELHOUTgreen2 sentences2014The doctrine is said to bend “where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule or where there has been an error in legal analysis.” Brown v. Nagelhout, 84 So.3d 304, 309 (Fla.2012) (quoting Puryear v. State, 810 So.2d 901, 905 (Fla.2002)). 2014The doctrine is said to bend “where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule or where there has been an error in legal analysis.” Brown v. Nagelhout, 84 So. 3d 304, 309 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Puryear v. State, 810 So. 2d 901, 905 (Fla. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greengreen1 sentence2008Cf. Chames v. DeMayo, 972 So.2d 850, 855 (Fla.2007) ("[T]he doctrine of stare decisis counsels us to follow our precedents unless there has been a significant change in circumstances after the adoption of the legal rule, or ... an error in legal analysis." (quoting Rotemi Realty, Inc. v. Act Realty Co., Inc., 911 So.2d 1181, 1188 (Fla.2005)) (quotation marks omitted)); State v. Green, 944 So.2d 208, 217 (Fla.2006) ("Stare decisis yields `when an established rule of law has proven unacceptable or unworkable in practice.'" (quoting Allstate Indem. | 1 | 1 |
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruizgreen1 sentence2008Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So.2d 1121, 1131 (Fla.2005))). | 1 | 1 |
Popple v. Stategreen1 sentence2006I noted in my dissenting opinion in Baez that in its discussion of this issue, one of several in a capital appeal, the Court in Lightbourne did not apply the distinction between consensual encounters and detentions that we later articulated when we focused exclusively on the issue in Popple v. State, 626 So.2d 185, 186-88 (Fla.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Perez v. Stategreen1 sentence1999See Perez v. State, 620 So.2d 1256, 1259-61 (Fla.1993) (Overton, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Virginia v. LeBlanc
green
2 sentences2018In LeBlanc, 137 S. Ct. at 1729 , the United States Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a Virginia court’s decision affirming a juvenile offender’s sentence of life for a nonhomicide crime subject to the possibility of conditional geriatric release was not an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s case law. 2018In LeBlanc , 137 S.Ct. at 1729 , the United States Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a Virginia court's decision affirming a juvenile offender's sentence of life for a nonhomicide crime subject to the possibility of conditional geriatric release was not an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court's case law. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Strand v. Escambia County
green
2 sentences2009In Strand v. Escambia County, 992 So.2d 150 (Fla.2008), we declined to recede from precedent because we concluded that the presumption in favor of stare decisis was strong. 2009In Strand v. Escambia County, 992 So.2d 150 (Fla. 2008), we declined to recede from precedent because we concluded that the presumption in favor of stare decisis was strong. | 1 | 2009–2009 |