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.
18 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Rule 9.331, Etc.green2 sentences2023Court of Appeal En Banc, 416 So. 2d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 1982) (observing that “a three-judge panel of a district court should not overrule or recede from a prior panel's ruling on an identical point of the law.” Instead, intra-district conflict should be resolved by an en banc decision of the court pursuant to rule 9.331); Nat’l Med. 2019App. P. 9.331(a); see also In re Rule 9.331, 416 So. 2d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 1982) ("[A] three-judge panel of a district court should not overrule or recede from a prior panel's ruling on an identical point of the law . . . ."); Wood v. Fraser, 677 So. 2d 15, 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) ("[A]bsent an en banc opinion expressly receding from a point of law announced in previous opinions of this court, a trial court should not rely on the expressions of a three-judge panel as a basis to conclude that a previous opinion of another three-judge panel no longer carries the force of law."); Levy, 255 So. 3d at | 2 | 3 |
Brigham v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See Brigham v. State, 769 So.2d 1100, 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). 2005See Brigham v. State, 769 So.2d 1100, 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). | 2 | 2 |
Ortiz v. Stategreen1 sentence2019App. P. 9.331(a); see also In re Rule 9.331, 416 So. 2d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 1982) ("[A] three-judge panel of a district court should not overrule or recede from a prior panel's ruling on an identical point of the law . . . ."); Wood v. Fraser, 677 So. 2d 15, 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) ("[A]bsent an en banc opinion expressly receding from a point of law announced in previous opinions of this court, a trial court should not rely on the expressions of a three-judge panel as a basis to conclude that a previous opinion of another three-judge panel no longer carries the force of law."); Levy, 255 So. 3d at | 1 | 1 |
University of Miami v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2019App. P. 9.331(a); see also In re Rule 9.331, 416 So. 2d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 1982) ("[A] three-judge panel of a district court should not overrule or recede from a prior panel's ruling on an identical point of the law . . . ."); Wood v. Fraser, 677 So. 2d 15, 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) ("[A]bsent an en banc opinion expressly receding from a point of law announced in previous opinions of this court, a trial court should not rely on the expressions of a three-judge panel as a basis to conclude that a previous opinion of another three-judge panel no longer carries the force of law."); Levy, 255 So. 3d at | 1 | 1 |
Wood v. Frasergreen1 sentence2019App. P. 9.331(a); see also In re Rule 9.331, 416 So. 2d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 1982) ("[A] three-judge panel of a district court should not overrule or recede from a prior panel's ruling on an identical point of the law . . . ."); Wood v. Fraser, 677 So. 2d 15, 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) ("[A]bsent an en banc opinion expressly receding from a point of law announced in previous opinions of this court, a trial court should not rely on the expressions of a three-judge panel as a basis to conclude that a previous opinion of another three-judge panel no longer carries the force of law."); Levy, 255 So. 3d at | 1 | 1 |
Ema v. Dept. of Child. and Fam.green2 sentences2015E.M.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 795 So. 2d 183, 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see In re M.C., 11 So. 3d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also R.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 799 So. 2d 441, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“[A] trial court order finding a child dependent but withholding an adjudication of dependency is properly reviewable by this court pursuant to rule 9.030(b)(1)(A) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.”). 2015E.M.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 795 So.2d 183, 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see In re M.C., 11 So.3d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also R.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 799 So.2d 441, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“[A] trial court order finding a child dependent but withholding an adjudication of dependency is properly reviewable by this court pursuant to rule 9.030(b)(1)(A) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.”). | 1 | 1 |
RB v. Department of Children and Familiesgreen2 sentences2015E.M.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 795 So. 2d 183, 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see In re M.C., 11 So. 3d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also R.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 799 So. 2d 441, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“[A] trial court order finding a child dependent but withholding an adjudication of dependency is properly reviewable by this court pursuant to rule 9.030(b)(1)(A) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.”). 2015E.M.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 795 So.2d 183, 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see In re M.C., 11 So.3d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also R.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 799 So.2d 441, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“[A] trial court order finding a child dependent but withholding an adjudication of dependency is properly reviewable by this court pursuant to rule 9.030(b)(1)(A) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.”). | 1 | 1 |
N.E.R. v. Department of Children & Family Servicesgreen2 sentences2015E.M.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 795 So. 2d 183, 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see In re M.C., 11 So. 3d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also R.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 799 So. 2d 441, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“[A] trial court order finding a child dependent but withholding an adjudication of dependency is properly reviewable by this court pursuant to rule 9.030(b)(1)(A) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.”). 2015E.M.A. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 795 So.2d 183, 184 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); see In re M.C., 11 So.3d 1013, 1014 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also R.B. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 799 So.2d 441, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“[A] trial court order finding a child dependent but withholding an adjudication of dependency is properly reviewable by this court pursuant to rule 9.030(b)(1)(A) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.”). | 1 | 1 |
FR v. Department of Children & Familiesgreen1 sentence2001See F.R. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 763 So.2d 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); K.S. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 760 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen1 sentence1998See Harris v. State, 685 So.2d 1282 (Fla.1996); Puffinberger v. State, 581 So.2d 897 (Fla.1991). [9] In this regard, we note that a sentencing error may not be "raised" on appeal unless preserved in the trial court pursuant to rule 9.140(d), but the supreme court has preserved the right of a district court, "in the interest of justice," to "grant any relief to which any party is entitled" in a criminal appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Bei v. Harpergreen1 sentence1995Accordingly, we relinquished jurisdiction to the trial court and ordered the parties to supplement the record on appeal with "a more complete statement of the proceedings below in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(3)." See also Bei v. Harper, 475 So.2d 912 *1302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (if a statement of evidence prepared by the appellant and approved by the trial court pursuant to rule 9.200(b)(3), together with exhibits and pleadings in the record, is inadequate to enable the appellate court to make a meaningful review of the issues presented, the appellate court can or | 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. Dist. Ct. of Appeal, First Dist.
green
2 sentences2005In light of State v. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, 569 So.2d 439 (Fla.1990), in which the supreme court pronounced that motions seeking belated direct appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel should be filed in the trial court pursuant to rule 3.850, the committee recommends that rule 3.111(e) be amended to detail with specificity defense counsel’s duties to perfect an appeal prior to withdrawing after judgment and sentence. 2004In light of State v. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First *1099 District, 569 So.2d 439 (Fla.1990), in which the supreme court pronounced that motions seeking belated direct appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel should be filed in the trial court pursuant to rule 3.850, the committee recommends that rule 3.111(e) be amended to detail with specificity defense counsel's duties to perfect an appeal prior to withdrawing after judgment and sentence. | 6 | 1992–2005 |
Levy v. Ben-Shmuel
green
1 sentence2019App. P. 9.331(a); see also In re Rule 9.331, 416 So. 2d 1127, 1128 (Fla. 1982) ("[A] three-judge panel of a district court should not overrule or recede from a prior panel's ruling on an identical point of the law . . . ."); Wood v. Fraser, 677 So. 2d 15, 18 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) ("[A]bsent an en banc opinion expressly receding from a point of law announced in previous opinions of this court, a trial court should not rely on the expressions of a three-judge panel as a basis to conclude that a previous opinion of another three-judge panel no longer carries the force of law."); Levy, 255 So. 3d at | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Greenwood v. State
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 1253 (citing Greenwood v. State, 802 So.2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ghanem v. State
neutral
2 sentences2007As we did in Ghanem v. State, 947 So.2d 1252 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), we affirm without prejudice to appellant seeking relief in the lower court pursuant to rule 3.850, within the time remaining under that rule. 2007Id. at 1253 (citing Greenwood v. State, 802 So.2d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Wright v. State
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
KS v. Department of Children and Families
green
1 sentence2001See F.R. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 763 So.2d 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); K.S. v. Dep't of Children & Families, 760 So.2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Puffinberger v. State
green
1 sentence1998See Harris v. State, 685 So.2d 1282 (Fla.1996); Puffinberger v. State, 581 So.2d 897 (Fla.1991). [9] In this regard, we note that a sentencing error may not be "raised" on appeal unless preserved in the trial court pursuant to rule 9.140(d), but the supreme court has preserved the right of a district court, "in the interest of justice," to "grant any relief to which any party is entitled" in a criminal appeal. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1986We conclude that the motion is sufficient on its face to warrant an evidentiary hearing under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and we remand this case to the trial court pursuant to rule 3.850(f), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. 1986We conclude that the motion is sufficient on its face to warrant an evidentiary hearing under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and we remand this case to the trial court pursuant to rule 3.850(f), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.