17 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lyons v. Stategreen1 sentence2019See Lyons v. State, 823 So. 2d 250, 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). | 1 | 1 |
Murphy v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Murphy v. State, 868 So. 2d 585, 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (finding that trial court “correctly concluded that the loss 2 of employment was a collateral consequence of Murphy’s plea”). | 1 | 1 |
Sawczak v. Goldenberggreen2 sentences2018Co. of Florida v. Moreta, 957 So. 2d 1242, 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (same); Sawczak v. Goldenberg, 781 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (same). 8 Further, our review of the record establishes that in this case, the four requirements of the Murphy test cannot be met. 1. 2018Co. of Florida v. Moreta, 957 So. 2d 1242, 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (same); Sawczak v. Goldenberg, 781 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (same). 8 Further, our review of the record establishes that in this case, the four requirements of the Murphy test cannot be met. 1. | 1 | 1 |
Platz v. AUTO RECYCLING AND REPAIR, INC.green2 sentences2018The Florida Supreme Court has since held that the Murphy test also applies to a trial court’s review of unpreserved errors related to “instances of attorney misconduct.” Companioni, 51 So. 3d at 456 ; see also Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (applying Murphy test to review defense counsel’s misconduct throughout trial); Platz v. Auto Recycling & Repair, Inc., 795 So. 2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing that the Murphy court “did not expressly limit its holding to closing argument”). 2018The Florida Supreme Court has since held that the Murphy test also applies to a trial court’s review of unpreserved errors related to “instances of attorney misconduct.” Companioni, 51 So. 3d at 456 ; see also Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (applying Murphy test to review defense counsel’s misconduct throughout trial); Platz v. Auto Recycling & Repair, Inc., 795 So. 2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing that the Murphy court “did not expressly limit its holding to closing argument”). | 1 | 1 |
DARRELL EDWARD BOYLES, Personal Representative v. Dillard's Inc.green2 sentences2018See generally Boyles v. Dillard’s Inc., 199 So. 3d 315, 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (finding improper defense counsel’s attempted impeachment of plaintiff’s credibility by referring to a deposition that had not previously been introduced into evidence); Moreta, 957 So. 2d at 1252 (finding improper defense counsel’s closing argument revealing opinion of non-testifying witness). 2. 2018See generally Boyles v. Dillard’s Inc., 199 So. 3d 315, 319 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (finding improper defense counsel’s attempted impeachment of plaintiff’s credibility by referring to a deposition that had not previously been introduced into evidence); Moreta, 957 So. 2d at 1252 (finding improper defense counsel’s closing argument revealing opinion of non-testifying witness). 2. | 1 | 1 |
Mercury Ins. Co. of Florida v. Moretagreen2 sentences2018Co. of Florida v. Moreta, 957 So. 2d 1242, 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (same); Sawczak v. Goldenberg, 781 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (same). 8 Further, our review of the record establishes that in this case, the four requirements of the Murphy test cannot be met. 1. 2018Co. of Florida v. Moreta, 957 So. 2d 1242, 1250 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (same); Sawczak v. Goldenberg, 781 So. 2d 450, 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (same). 8 Further, our review of the record establishes that in this case, the four requirements of the Murphy test cannot be met. 1. | 1 | 1 |
Carnival Corp. v. Jimenezgreen2 sentences2018The Florida Supreme Court has since held that the Murphy test also applies to a trial court’s review of unpreserved errors related to “instances of attorney misconduct.” Companioni, 51 So. 3d at 456 ; see also Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (applying Murphy test to review defense counsel’s misconduct throughout trial); Platz v. Auto Recycling & Repair, Inc., 795 So. 2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing that the Murphy court “did not expressly limit its holding to closing argument”). 2018The Florida Supreme Court has since held that the Murphy test also applies to a trial court’s review of unpreserved errors related to “instances of attorney misconduct.” Companioni, 51 So. 3d at 456 ; see also Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (applying Murphy test to review defense counsel’s misconduct throughout trial); Platz v. Auto Recycling & Repair, Inc., 795 So. 2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing that the Murphy court “did not expressly limit its holding to closing argument”). | 1 | 1 |
Tylinski v. Klein Automotive, Inc.green1 sentence2017P’ship, 157 So.3d 273, 277 (Fla. 2015) (holding that an appellate court, viewing the evidence and all inferences of fact in light most favorable to non-moving party, can affirm a directed verdict only where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the non-moving party); Tylinski v. Klein Auto., Inc., 90 So.3d 870, 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (recognizing that “a motion for directed verdict should be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally *101 predicate a verdict in favor of the non-moving party.”) 1 Finally, we cannot say that the tria | 1 | 1 |
Shandalyn Sanders, etc. v. Erp Operating Limited Partnership, etc.green1 sentence2017P’ship, 157 So.3d 273, 277 (Fla. 2015) (holding that an appellate court, viewing the evidence and all inferences of fact in light most favorable to non-moving party, can affirm a directed verdict only where no proper view of the evidence could sustain a verdict in favor of the non-moving party); Tylinski v. Klein Auto., Inc., 90 So.3d 870, 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (recognizing that “a motion for directed verdict should be granted when there is no reasonable evidence upon which a jury could legally *101 predicate a verdict in favor of the non-moving party.”) 1 Finally, we cannot say that the tria | 1 | 1 |
Holden v. Stategreen1 sentence2014See Holden v. State, 90 So.3d 902, 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (Benton, C.J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
Munoz v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Objective entrapment Florida recognizes two theories of defense based on entrapment: subjective entrapment, codified in section 777.201, Florida Statutes, and objective entrapment, definitively established in Munoz v. State, 629 So.2d 90, 99 (Fla.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Hodsongreen2 sentences2013See Thompson v. Hodson, 825 So.2d 941, 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). 3. 2013See Thompson v. Hodson, 825 So.2d 941, 947 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). 3. | 1 | 1 |
Moss v. Stategreen1 sentence2009The motion also refers to a 2004 report by the National Research Council on comparative bullet-lead analysis that concluded that “‘the statistical methods and its expert testimonies were flawed’ ” and that “ ‘available data does not support any statement that a crime bullet came from a particular box of ammunition.’ ” In Moss v. State, 860 So.2d 1007, 1008 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), the Fifth District reversed the summary denial of a rule 3.850 motion alleging newly discovered evidence based on the 1997 report cited by Mr. Murphy. | 1 | 1 |
MEADOWS COMMUNITY ASS'N v. Russell-Tuttygreen1 sentence2009See id. | 1 | 1 |
Malcolm v. Stategreen2 sentences2002In short, where the conduct "so damaged the fairness of the trial that the public's interest in our system of justice requires a new trial." Murphy, 766 So.2d at 1030 . [4] We have previously referred to a trial judge's instruction to disregard offending testimony or argument as "of legendary ineffectiveness." Malcolm v. State, 415 So.2d 891, 892, n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). 2002In short, where the conduct "so damaged the fairness of the trial that the public's interest in our system of justice requires a new trial." Murphy, 766 So.2d at 1030 . [4] We have previously referred to a trial judge's instruction to disregard offending testimony or argument as "of legendary ineffectiveness." Malcolm v. State, 415 So.2d 891, 892, n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). | 1 | 1 |
Love v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See Love, 814 So.2d at 476 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002For example, under the second prong of the Murphy analysis, to be considered harmful enough to warrant a new trial, the comments must be such that no other remedy is available and the comments must be "so highly prejudicial and of such collective impact as to gravely impair a fair consideration and determination of the case by the jury." Id. at 1029 . 2002For example, under the second prong of the Murphy analysis, to be considered harmful enough to warrant a new trial, the comments must be such that no other remedy is available and the comments must be "so highly prejudicial and of such collective impact as to gravely impair a fair consideration and determination of the case by the jury." Id. at 1029 . | 4 | 2002–2019 |
Companioni v. City of Tampa
green
2 sentences2018The Florida Supreme Court has since held that the Murphy test also applies to a trial court’s review of unpreserved errors related to “instances of attorney misconduct.” Companioni, 51 So. 3d at 456 ; see also Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (applying Murphy test to review defense counsel’s misconduct throughout trial); Platz v. Auto Recycling & Repair, Inc., 795 So. 2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing that the Murphy court “did not expressly limit its holding to closing argument”). 2018The Florida Supreme Court has since held that the Murphy test also applies to a trial court’s review of unpreserved errors related to “instances of attorney misconduct.” Companioni, 51 So. 3d at 456 ; see also Carnival Corp. v. Jimenez, 112 So. 3d 513, 519 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (applying Murphy test to review defense counsel’s misconduct throughout trial); Platz v. Auto Recycling & Repair, Inc., 795 So. 2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (recognizing that the Murphy court “did not expressly limit its holding to closing argument”). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Fasani v. Kowalski
green
2 sentences2011This is an improper value of life argument, Fasani v. Kowalski, 43 So.3d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), Chin v. Caiaffa, 42 So.3d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), but does not meet the Murphy test for reversal. 4. 2011This is an improper value of life argument, Fasani v. Kowalski, 43 So.3d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), Chin v. Caiaffa, 42 So.3d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), but does not meet the Murphy test for reversal. 4. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Chin v. CAIAFFA
green
2 sentences2011This is an improper value of life argument, Fasani v. Kowalski, 43 So.3d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), Chin v. Caiaffa, 42 So.3d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), but does not meet the Murphy test for reversal. 4. 2011This is an improper value of life argument, Fasani v. Kowalski, 43 So.3d 805 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), Chin v. Caiaffa, 42 So.3d 300 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), but does not meet the Murphy test for reversal. 4. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Carnival Corp. v. Pajares
green
2 sentences2011Because none of the unobjected-to arguments, while arguably improper, meet the Murphy test for reversal, they have not been a factor in our decision to reverse this case and remand for a new trial. 10 Carnival Corp., 972 So.2d at 979 . 2011Because none of the unobjected-to arguments, while arguably improper, meet the Murphy test for reversal, they have not been a factor in our decision to reverse this case and remand for a new trial. 10 Carnival Corp., 972 So.2d at 979 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Thornton v. United States
green
2 sentences2009The court ruled that the search of the vehicle was legal under the Supreme Court’s decisions in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), which authorized a search of a vehicle incident to the arrest of an occupant of the vehicle, and Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 , 124 S.Ct. 2127 , 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004), which extended Belton to authorize a search of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a “recent occupant” of a vehicle. 2009The court ruled that the search of the vehicle was legal under the Supreme Court’s decisions in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), which authorized a search of a vehicle incident to the arrest of an occupant of the vehicle, and Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 , 124 S.Ct. 2127 , 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004), which extended Belton to authorize a search of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a “recent occupant” of a vehicle. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
New York v. Belton
red
2 sentences2009The court ruled that the search of the vehicle was legal under the Supreme Court’s decisions in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), which authorized a search of a vehicle incident to the arrest of an occupant of the vehicle, and Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 , 124 S.Ct. 2127 , 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004), which extended Belton to authorize a search of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a “recent occupant” of a vehicle. 2009The court ruled that the search of the vehicle was legal under the Supreme Court’s decisions in New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 2860 , 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), which authorized a search of a vehicle incident to the arrest of an occupant of the vehicle, and Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615 , 124 S.Ct. 2127 , 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004), which extended Belton to authorize a search of a vehicle incident to the arrest of a “recent occupant” of a vehicle. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
United States v. Bender
green
1 sentence2009Mr. Murphy cited United States v. Bender, 304 F.3d 161 (1st Cir.2002), to support his claim that “Knowledge of these findings must be imputed to the prosecutor, as the FBI Crime Lab was acting on behalf of the State.” The postconviction court denied this claim because Mr. Murphy did not suggest that “the prosecution in this ease knew or should have known, at the time of trial or even after, that their evidence was deficient.” On his motion for rehearing, Mr. Murphy pointed out that his rule 3.850 motion alleged that the FBI’s knowledge of the favorable reports must be imputed to the State unde | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Murphy v. Florida
green
2 sentences1979Id. at 803 , 95 S.Ct. at 2038 . 1979Id. at 803 , 95 S.Ct. at 2038 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.