14 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dominguez v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Jones v. State, 32 So. 3d 706, 710-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (determining that the Richardson hearing requirement applies to a possible discovery violation, even if the defendant does not request a Richardson hearing). 2018Jones v. State, 32 So. 3d 706, 710-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (determining that the Richardson hearing requirement applies to a possible discovery violation, even if the defendant does not request a Richardson hearing). | 2 | 2 |
DEPT. OF LEGAL AFF. v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc.green2 sentences2007Dep’t of Legal Affairs v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 434 So.2d 879, 881 (Fla.1983). 2007Dep't of Legal Affairs v. Sanford-Orlando Kennel Club, Inc., 434 So.2d 879, 881 (Fla.1983). | 2 | 2 |
Toole v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Toole v. State, 472 So.2d 1174, 1176 (Fla.1985). 1999See Toole v. State, 472 So.2d 1174, 1176 (Fla. 1985). | 2 | 2 |
Allen v. Milligangreen1 sentence2023The process requirement “focuses on ballot access and counting.” Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1, 46 (2023) (Thomas, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenaisgreen1 sentence2018Id. at 502 (citation omitted). -3- This two-step process governs our analysis of this case even though there was a forum selection clause. | 1 | 1 |
Estevez v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Savage, 120 So. 3d at 621 ("Both the trial court's decision whether to revoke probation and our standard of review involve two steps."); Harrington v. State, 238 So. 3d 294 , - 10 - 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Estevez v. State, 705 So. 2d 972, 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Dilks v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Savage, 120 So. 3d at 621 ("Both the trial court's decision whether to revoke probation and our standard of review involve two steps."); Harrington v. State, 238 So. 3d 294 , - 10 - 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Estevez v. State, 705 So. 2d 972, 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Stategreen1 sentence2017The failure to give a party the chance to present witnesses.or testify violates this fundamental, right.” Cole v. Cole, 159 So.3d 124, 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); see also Julia v. Julia, 146 So.3d 516, 520-21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (describing a due. process violation when a party was not allowed to present her full case or give closing arguments). | 1 | 1 |
Cole v. Colegreen1 sentence2017The failure to give a party the chance to present witnesses.or testify violates this fundamental, right.” Cole v. Cole, 159 So.3d 124, 125 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); see also Julia v. Julia, 146 So.3d 516, 520-21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (describing a due. process violation when a party was not allowed to present her full case or give closing arguments). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1990State v. Williams, 362 So.2d 678, 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), dismissed, 368 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 1979), properly explained the regulatory significance of this rule in this manner: The predecessor of the current rule required that an information charging a felony should be signed by a State Attorney under oath, stating only his good faith in instituting the prosecution. | 1 | 1 |
Kibler v. DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REG.green1 sentence1983But Beckum urges that the absence of an accurate recording of the original probable cause proceedings effectively deprives him of his asserted entitlement to assure that the probable cause proceedings met standards prescribed by Kibler v. Department of Professional Regulation, 418 So.2d 1081, 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982): To sustain a probable cause determination there must be some evidence considered by the panel that would reasonably indicate that the violations alleged had indeed occurred. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Amend. to Fla. Rule of Juv. Proc.
green
2 sentences2004However, in 1988, following the established process for rule changes, the State Attorneys of Florida petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida to consider an amendment to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180. 3 In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180 (SPEEDY TRIAL), 536 So.2d 199 (Fla.1988). 2004However, in 1988, following the established process for rule changes, the State Attorneys of Florida petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida to consider an amendment to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180. [3] In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.180 (SPEEDY TRIAL), 536 So.2d 199 (Fla. 1988). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
BRIAN HARRINGTON v. STATE OF FLORIDA
green
1 sentence2018See Savage, 120 So. 3d at 621 ("Both the trial court's decision whether to revoke probation and our standard of review involve two steps."); Harrington v. State, 238 So. 3d 294 , - 10 - 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018); Estevez v. State, 705 So. 2d 972, 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.