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 1923–2000 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 |
|---|---|---|
Carlile v. Stategreen2 sentences1990If, though, the comments are so prejudicial that "neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence * * * a new trial should be awarded, regardless of the want of objection or exception." Carlile v. State, 129 Fla. 860 , 176 So. 862, 864 (1937). 1990If, though, the comments are so prejudicial that "neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence * * * a new trial should be awarded, regardless of the want of objection or exception." Carlile v. State, 129 Fla. 860 , 176 So. 862, 864 (1937). | 2 | 7 |
Baggett v. Davisgreen2 sentences2000This rule is subject to the exception that, if the improper remarks are of such a character that neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence, in which event a new trial should be awarded regardless of the want of objection or exception. *1019 See, Baggett, 124 Fla. at 716-17 , 169 So. at 379 . 2000This rule is subject to the exception that, if the improper remarks are of such a character that neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence, in which event a new trial should be awarded regardless of the want of objection or exception. *1019 See, Baggett, 124 Fla. at 716-17 , 169 So. at 379 . | 1 | 4 |
Akin v. Stategreen2 sentences1996This rule is subject to the exception that, if the improper remarks are of such character that [n]either rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence, in such event a new trial should be awarded regardless of the want of objection or exception. 98 So. at 612 (citations omitted). 1936This rule is subject to the exception that if the improper remarks are of such character that neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence, in which event a new trial should be awarded regardless of the want of objection or exception.” Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564 , 98 So. 609 . | 1 | 4 |
Boutwell v. Bishopgreen1 sentence1979Boutwell v. Bishop, 194 So.2d 3, 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967); National Western Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Goddard v. Stategreen2 sentences1975Accord, Wilson v. State, 294 So.2d 327 (Fla. 1974); Grant v. State, 194 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1967); Pait v. State, 112 So.2d 380, 385 (Fla. 1959); Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28 , 196 So. 596, 600 (1940). 1975Accord, Wilson v. State, 294 So.2d 327 (Fla. 1974); Grant v. State, 194 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1967); Pait v. State, 112 So.2d 380, 385 (Fla. 1959); Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28 , 196 So. 596, 600 (1940). | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen1 sentence1975Accord, Wilson v. State, 294 So.2d 327 (Fla. 1974); Grant v. State, 194 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1967); Pait v. State, 112 So.2d 380, 385 (Fla. 1959); Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28 , 196 So. 596, 600 (1940). | 1 | 1 |
Pait v. Stategreen1 sentence1975Accord, Wilson v. State, 294 So.2d 327 (Fla. 1974); Grant v. State, 194 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1967); Pait v. State, 112 So.2d 380, 385 (Fla. 1959); Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28 , 196 So. 596, 600 (1940). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oglesby v. State
green
1 sentence1990Id. 23 So.2d at 559 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Bishop v. Watson
green
1 sentence1982This rule is subject to the exception that, if the improper remarks are of such character that neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence, in which event a new trial should be awarded regardless of the want of objection or exception.” (See also Bishop v. Watson, 367 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979)). 6. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Rowe v. State
green
2 sentences1978Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564 , 98 So. 609 ; Rowe v. State, supra [ 87 Fla. 17 , 98 So. 613 ]; Carlile v. State, 129 Fla. 860 , 176 So. 862 . 1978Akin v. State, 86 Fla. 564 , 98 So. 609 ; Rowe v. State, supra [ 87 Fla. 17 , 98 So. 613 ]; Carlile v. State, 129 Fla. 860 , 176 So. 862 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Grant v. State
green
1 sentence1975Accord, Wilson v. State, 294 So.2d 327 (Fla. 1974); Grant v. State, 194 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1967); Pait v. State, 112 So.2d 380, 385 (Fla. 1959); Goddard v. State, 143 Fla. 28 , 196 So. 596, 600 (1940). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Carlton v. Johns
green
1 sentence1969This rule is subject to the exception that, if the improper remarks are of such character that neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy *494 their sinister influence, in which event a new trial should be awarded regardless of the want of objection or exception.'" The Baggett decision has been followed in Tyus v. Apalachicola Northern Railroad Company, Fla. 1961, 130 So.2d 580 , and cited with approval in Carlton v. Johns, Fla.App. 1967, 194 So.2d 670 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Tyus v. Apalachicola Northern Railroad Company
green
1 sentence1969This rule is subject to the exception that, if the improper remarks are of such character that neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy *494 their sinister influence, in which event a new trial should be awarded regardless of the want of objection or exception.'" The Baggett decision has been followed in Tyus v. Apalachicola Northern Railroad Company, Fla. 1961, 130 So.2d 580 , and cited with approval in Carlton v. Johns, Fla.App. 1967, 194 So.2d 670 . | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Henderson v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences1967This rule, however, is subject to the exception that if the improper remarks are of such character that neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence then on appeal they may be considered as error even in the absence of an objection in the trial court." (Emphasis added.) The rule and its exception were similarly stated in Carlile v. State, supra. As thus stated, the Court was paraphrasing the original pronouncement of the exception to the rule as follows: "This rule is, however, subject to the exception that if the improper remarks are of such character that neith 1967This rule, however, is subject to the exception that if the improper remarks are of such character that neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence then on appeal they may be considered as error even in the absence of an objection in the trial court." (Emphasis added.) The rule and its exception were similarly stated in Carlile v. State, supra. As thus stated, the Court was paraphrasing the original pronouncement of the exception to the rule as follows: "This rule is, however, subject to the exception that if the improper remarks are of such character that neith | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Livingston v. State
green
2 sentences1967This rule, however, is subject to the exception that if the improper remarks are of such character that neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence then on appeal they may be considered as error even in the absence of an objection in the trial court." (Emphasis added.) The rule and its exception were similarly stated in Carlile v. State, supra. As thus stated, the Court was paraphrasing the original pronouncement of the exception to the rule as follows: "This rule is, however, subject to the exception that if the improper remarks are of such character that neith 1967This rule, however, is subject to the exception that if the improper remarks are of such character that neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence then on appeal they may be considered as error even in the absence of an objection in the trial court." (Emphasis added.) The rule and its exception were similarly stated in Carlile v. State, supra. As thus stated, the Court was paraphrasing the original pronouncement of the exception to the rule as follows: "This rule is, however, subject to the exception that if the improper remarks are of such character that neith | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Fast v. State
neutral
1 sentence1967This rule, however, is subject to the exception that if the improper remarks are of such character that neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence then on appeal they may be considered as error even in the absence of an objection in the trial court." (Emphasis added.) The rule and its exception were similarly stated in Carlile v. State, supra. As thus stated, the Court was paraphrasing the original pronouncement of the exception to the rule as follows: "This rule is, however, subject to the exception that if the improper remarks are of such character that neith | 1 | 1967–1967 |
State v. Brown
green
1 sentence1939This rule is subject to the exception that if the improper remarks are of such character that neither rebuke nor retraction may entirely destroy their sinister influence, in which event a new trial should be awarded regardless of the want of objection or exception" (Emphasis supplied) A case directly in point is that of State v. Brown, 128 La. 337 , 86 Sou. 912 . | 1 | 1939–1939 |
State v. Blackman
neutral
1 sentence1923State v. Blackman, 108 La. 121 , 32 South. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
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.