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 3 courts 1974–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Turner v. State, 873 So.2d 480, 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“A *47 written order of revocation of probation must conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.” (citing Williams v. State, 764 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000))). 2011See Turner v. State, 873 So.2d 480, 480 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“A written order of revocation of probation must conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.”) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lavazzoligreen2 sentences1993See Fogg v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 473 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see generally, State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1983). 1993See Fogg v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 473 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see generally, State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1983). | 2 | 2 |
Fogg v. Southeast Bank, NAgreen2 sentences1993See Fogg v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 473 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see generally, State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1983). 1993See Fogg v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 473 So.2d 1352 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see generally, State v. Lavazzoli, 434 So.2d 321 (Fla. 1983). | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Sheridan v. State, 799 So.2d 223, 225-26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing that the prosecutor “repeatedly made improper statements during closing argument, including the reference to a defense theory as ‘desperate’ ”); Brown v. State, 593 So.2d 1210, 1211-12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (stating that the prosecutor’s comments that the victim was again “victimized” by having to testify at trial and that “he wanted to be able to call the victim and say that the jury had the courage to see the truth and that he was not victimized a second time” were improper appeals for sympathy that would create “hosti | 1 | 1 |
Sheridan v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Sheridan v. State, 799 So.2d 223, 225-26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing that the prosecutor “repeatedly made improper statements during closing argument, including the reference to a defense theory as ‘desperate’ ”); Brown v. State, 593 So.2d 1210, 1211-12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (stating that the prosecutor’s comments that the victim was again “victimized” by having to testify at trial and that “he wanted to be able to call the victim and say that the jury had the courage to see the truth and that he was not victimized a second time” were improper appeals for sympathy that would create “hosti | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Sheridan v. State, 799 So.2d 223, 225-26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing that the prosecutor “repeatedly made improper statements during closing argument, including the reference to a defense theory as ‘desperate’ ”); Brown v. State, 593 So.2d 1210, 1211-12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (stating that the prosecutor’s comments that the victim was again “victimized” by having to testify at trial and that “he wanted to be able to call the victim and say that the jury had the courage to see the truth and that he was not victimized a second time” were improper appeals for sympathy that would create “hosti | 1 | 1 |
Kelly v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Sheridan v. State, 799 So.2d 223, 225-26 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing that the prosecutor “repeatedly made improper statements during closing argument, including the reference to a defense theory as ‘desperate’ ”); Brown v. State, 593 So.2d 1210, 1211-12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (stating that the prosecutor’s comments that the victim was again “victimized” by having to testify at trial and that “he wanted to be able to call the victim and say that the jury had the courage to see the truth and that he was not victimized a second time” were improper appeals for sympathy that would create “hosti | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Turner v. State, 873 So.2d 480, 481 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“A *47 written order of revocation of probation must conform with the trial court’s oral pronouncement.” (citing Williams v. State, 764 So.2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000))). | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Goldmangreen2 sentences2014See Goldman v. Campbell, 920 So.2d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) decision quashed, 959 So.2d 223 (Fla.2007). 2014In Campbell , for example, the supreme court expressly rejected the Fourth District’s view that the offeror’s failure to cite to the statute was inconsequential despite a reference to rule 1.442 and the fact that only one statute existed under which fees were awardable for failure to accept an offer of judgment. 959 So.2d at 227 . | 1 | 1 |
Goldman v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2014See Goldman v. Campbell, 920 So.2d 1264, 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) decision quashed, 959 So.2d 223 (Fla.2007). | 1 | 1 |
MARZENDORFER v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Marzendorfer v. State, 16 So.3d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Richardson v. State, 694 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pettisgreen1 sentence2006P. 9.030(b)(2)(A)(permitting review of "non-final orders of lower tribunals other than as prescribed by rule 9.130"); State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1988)(pointing out that "the reference to rule 9.130 is not inadvertent because the orders covered by that rule are ones from which an interlocutory appeal may be taken as contrasted to a petition for certiorari"); cf. Art. | 1 | 1 |
Stuart v. Hertz Corp.green1 sentence1994See Stuart v. Hertz, 351 So.2d 703, 706 (Fla. 1977) ("[T]he doctrine of contribution has been based upon equitable rights."); Love v. Gibson, 2 Fla. 598 (1849) (contribution is based on principles of equity). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Raymond Const. Co. of Florida, Inc.green1 sentence1993Compare Raymond, 6 B.R. at 797 (service requirement in rule 1.260(a) for substituting parties in case of death is applicable also to subsection (c) transfer of interest provision). | 1 | 1 |
Diaz v. Stategreen1 sentence1988See Diaz v. State, 445 So.2d 619 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Watson v. State
green
1 sentence2017The court held that the reference in the rule to “ ‘statement’ is limited to written statements or contemporaneously recorded oral statements.” Watson, 651 So.2d at 1163-64 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. McFadden
green
2 sentences2017Later, in State v. McFadden, 50 So.3d 1131 (Fla. 2010), the court held that rule 3.220(b)(1)(B) did not require the State to disclose to a defendant an oral, unrecorded witness statement because “[o]n its face, the rule does not include unrecorded oral statements.” 50 So.3d at 1133 . 2017Later, in State v. McFadden, 50 So.3d 1131 (Fla. 2010), the court held that rule 3.220(b)(1)(B) did not require the State to disclose to a defendant an oral, unrecorded witness statement because “[o]n its face, the rule does not include unrecorded oral statements.” 50 So.3d at 1133 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Padilla v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2015These amendments follow the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 , 130 S.Ct. 1473 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), and this Court’s decision in Hernandez v. State, 124 So.3d 757 (Fla.2012), each pertaining to ineffective assistance of trial counsel with respect to whether counsel has a duty to advise his or her client whether an offense to which he or she is pleading guilty would subject the client to deportation. *767 Rule 3.192 (Motions for Rehearing) is amended to add a reference to rule 3.801 (Correction of Jail Credit) as another of the postconviction proce 2015These amendments follow the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 , 130 S.Ct. 1473 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), and this Court’s decision in Hernandez v. State, 124 So.3d 757 (Fla.2012), each pertaining to ineffective assistance of trial counsel with respect to whether counsel has a duty to advise his or her client whether an offense to which he or she is pleading guilty would subject the client to deportation. *767 Rule 3.192 (Motions for Rehearing) is amended to add a reference to rule 3.801 (Correction of Jail Credit) as another of the postconviction proce | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Hernandez v. State
green
1 sentence2015These amendments follow the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 , 130 S.Ct. 1473 , 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), and this Court’s decision in Hernandez v. State, 124 So.3d 757 (Fla.2012), each pertaining to ineffective assistance of trial counsel with respect to whether counsel has a duty to advise his or her client whether an offense to which he or she is pleading guilty would subject the client to deportation. *767 Rule 3.192 (Motions for Rehearing) is amended to add a reference to rule 3.801 (Correction of Jail Credit) as another of the postconviction proce | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Richardson v. State
green
1 sentence2011See Marzendorfer v. State, 16 So.3d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Richardson v. State, 694 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Tucker v. State
green
2 sentences2008In Tucker , the court also acknowledged the propriety of reversing the conviction of a defendant who was tried without a jury "when the record contained no written waiver of a jury trial and the trial court failed to inquire into the defendant's waiver of a jury trial or conducted an insufficient inquiry." Id. at 220 . 2008Notwithstanding the reference in rule 3.260 to a waiver "in writing," in Tucker v. State, 559 So.2d 218 (Fla.1990), the supreme court recognized the validity of oral waivers. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Love v. Gibson
green
1 sentence1994See Stuart v. Hertz, 351 So.2d 703, 706 (Fla. 1977) ("[T]he doctrine of contribution has been based upon equitable rights."); Love v. Gibson, 2 Fla. 598 (1849) (contribution is based on principles of equity). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Cannon v. State
green
1 sentence1982Since the record presented on appeal does not contain sufficient information to enable us to determine whether the defendant was entitled to be sentenced as a youthful offender under Section 958.05, Florida Statutes (1979), compare Cannon v. State, 384 So.2d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), with Gonzalez v. State, 392 So.2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), we affirm the sentence imposed without prejudice to the defendant applying to the trial court for sentencing relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Downer v. State
green
1 sentence1982The Order of Revocation of Probation is modified to strike therefrom the reference to the violation of probation arising from the admittedly unproved criminal charge filed in Case No. 80-3318, and in all other respects is affirmed, see Downer v. State, 375 So.2d 840 (Fla.1979) (rehearing); State v. Freber, 366 So.2d 426 (Fla.1978). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Gonzalez v. State
green
1 sentence1982Since the record presented on appeal does not contain sufficient information to enable us to determine whether the defendant was entitled to be sentenced as a youthful offender under Section 958.05, Florida Statutes (1979), compare Cannon v. State, 384 So.2d 970 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), with Gonzalez v. State, 392 So.2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), we affirm the sentence imposed without prejudice to the defendant applying to the trial court for sentencing relief under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Freber
green
1 sentence1982The Order of Revocation of Probation is modified to strike therefrom the reference to the violation of probation arising from the admittedly unproved criminal charge filed in Case No. 80-3318, and in all other respects is affirmed, see Downer v. State, 375 So.2d 840 (Fla.1979) (rehearing); State v. Freber, 366 So.2d 426 (Fla.1978). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Brouillett v. State
green
1 sentence1981Brouillett v. State, 373 So.2d 449 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
In Re Estate of Carpenter
green
1 sentence1980The court's reference to the presumption of undue influence arising from a confidential relationship finds its basis in the legal principles set forth in the case of In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1971). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor
green
1 sentence1974(Emphasis supplied.) The reference to the exception to the general rule created by the Resign-to-Run Law is with regard to the court's earlier holding in in re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 239 So.2d 247 (Fla. 1970). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.