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.
14 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Evans v. Seagravesgreen2 sentences2024Our decision is the latest in an unbroken line of precedent holding that hearsay testimony (not falling within some exception to the rule excluding hearsay) does not, by itself, meet the state's burden at an adversary preliminary hearing under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.133(b).” Id. at 319 (additional citations omitted) (emphasis added). 2010Defense counsel argued that hearsay could not be used as the basis for a finding of probable cause at an adversary preliminary hearing, citing Evans v. Seagraves, 922 So.2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). | 1 | 3 |
Bell v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Bell v. State, 361 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) (holding that if the State fails to file charges within 21 days from an arrest, a defendant is entitled to an adversary preliminary hearing even after being released on a charge). 1985Although this rule extends to an arrested defendant greater rights than the Constitution demands, Bell v. State, 361 So.2d 818 , it does not require, as the petitioner suggests, that an adversary preliminary hearing be held within twenty-one days of arrest. | 1 | 3 |
Santopolo v. Stateyellow2 sentences2021But see Santopolo v. State, 443 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 6 1984); Dumlar v. State, 808 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (disagreeing with Bell). 1985Compare Bell (defendant who is not in custody may demand an adversary preliminary hearing pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3.133(b) with Santopolo v. State, 443 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 451 So.2d 850 (Fla.1984) (when information is filed after the twenty-one-day period, but defendant is released on his own recognizance, the court need not furnish adversary preliminary hearing upon defendant’s demand). . | 1 | 2 |
Perry v. Bradshawgreen1 sentence2021Perry v. Bradshaw, 43 So. 3d 180, 181 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (following Evans v. Seagraves, 922 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)). | 1 | 1 |
Florida Agency For Health Care Administration v. Zuckerman Spaeder, LLPgreen1 sentence2019“In order to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, the respondent must have an indisputable legal duty to perform the requested action, and the petitioner must have no other adequate remedy available.” Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin. v. Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP, 221 So. 3d 1260, 1263 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Gomez v. Village of Pinecrestgreen1 sentence2010At that stage, "the seizing agency is required to establish only that there is probable cause to believe that the property was being employed or likely to be employed in criminal activity — establishing the owner’s actual or constructive knowledge is not required until the forfeiture stage.” Gomez v. Vill. of Pinecrest, 41 So.3d 180, 181 (Fla. 2010). 3 . | 1 | 1 |
Stephenson v. Ricegreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., Stephenson v. Rice, 574 So.2d 286, 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) ("Since there was no other corroborative testimony presented, the hearsay testimony was insufficient. . . . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Glassgreen1 sentence1999See State v. Glass, 657 So.2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (after sheriffs office sent notice to claimant of her right to adversarial preliminary hearing in forfeiture proceeding, claimant answered, requested an adversarial preliminary hearing, and moved to suppress all evidence seized). | 1 | 1 |
Bowens v. Tysongreen1 sentence1993The underlying purpose of this rule is “to force the state to formally charge the accused as soon after arrest as practical.” Bowens v. Tyson, 578 So.2d 696, 697 (Fla. 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Cameron v. Stategreen1 sentence1978See Cameron v. State, 291 So.2d 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Florida Rules of Criminal Proceduregreen1 sentence1976See In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 309 So.2d 544 (Fla. 1975). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Santopolo v. Stateyellow2 sentences2021But see Santopolo v. State, 443 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 6 1984); Dumlar v. State, 808 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (disagreeing with Bell). 1985Compare Bell (defendant who is not in custody may demand an adversary preliminary hearing pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3.133(b) with Santopolo v. State, 443 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 451 So.2d 850 (Fla.1984) (when information is filed after the twenty-one-day period, but defendant is released on his own recognizance, the court need not furnish adversary preliminary hearing upon defendant’s demand). . | 1 | 2 |
Dumlar v. Stategreen1 sentence2021But see Santopolo v. State, 443 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 6 1984); Dumlar v. State, 808 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (disagreeing with Bell). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ohio v. Roberts
red
2 sentences2008In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 70 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), the Supreme Court addressed the adequacy of the defendant's examination of a declarant at an adversary preliminary hearing. [2] The Supreme Court noted that the testimony from a preliminary hearing was properly admitted in Roberts because the defendant had examined *349 the witness at that hearing. 2008In Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 70 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980), the Supreme Court addressed the adequacy of the defendant's examination of a declarant at an adversary preliminary hearing. [2] The Supreme Court noted that the testimony from a preliminary hearing was properly admitted in Roberts because the defendant had examined *349 the witness at that hearing. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Parry-Hoepfner v. State
neutral
1 sentence2024The subsequent filing of an information or indictment shall not eliminate a defendant's entitlement to this proceeding.”) See also Evans v. Seagraves, 922 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Parry-Hoepfner v. State, 128 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rea v. Leadership Housing, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021As to the interference with custody count, the majority is correct that we held in Bell v. State, 312 So.2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), that a defendant is entitled to an adversary preliminary hearing even if he has posted bond. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Arthur
green
1 sentence2021In that case, the First District held that where the state has not filed charges within twenty-one days of arrest, the defendant is entitled to an adversary preliminary hearing on all charges pending as a result of the criminal episode at the time of the adversary preliminary hearing. 1 State v. Arthur, 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1980). 2 The defendant in Beicke was arrested for aggravated battery. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Pierce v. Mims
green
1 sentence2006The court so ruled in Pierce v. Mims, 418 So.2d 273 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), in granting a petition for writ of habeas corpus because the state adduced at the adversary preliminary hearing only hearsay testimony that would be inadmissible at trial. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Mize v. State
neutral
2 sentences1985Because the State may foreclose the right to an adversary preliminary hearing by filing an information or obtaining an indictment within twenty-one days of arrest, Mize v. State, 389 So.2d at 1106 , it would be in derogation of the State’s rights to require it to submit to the hearing before that time period had run. 1985Mize v. State, 389 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.