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 3 courts 1966–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pompano Horse Club, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Bryangreen1 sentence2019Pompano Horse Club, Inc. v. State, 111 So. 801, 805 (Fla. 1927); see also Telophase Soc’y of Fla., Inc. v. State Bd. of Funeral Dirs. & Embalmers, 334 So. 2d 563, 565 , 566–67 (Fla. 1976) (upholding disjunctive use of “or” where statute defined “funeral directing” as the “profession of directing or supervising funerals for profit, or the profession of preparing dead human bodies for burial or cremation by means other than embalming, or the disposition or shipping of dead human bodies, or the provision or maintenance of a place for the preparation of dead human bodies.”); Antonin Scalia & Bryan | 1 | 1 |
Telophase Soc. of Fla., Inc. v. STATE BD. OF FUN. D. & E.green1 sentence2019Pompano Horse Club, Inc. v. State, 111 So. 801, 805 (Fla. 1927); see also Telophase Soc’y of Fla., Inc. v. State Bd. of Funeral Dirs. & Embalmers, 334 So. 2d 563, 565 , 566–67 (Fla. 1976) (upholding disjunctive use of “or” where statute defined “funeral directing” as the “profession of directing or supervising funerals for profit, or the profession of preparing dead human bodies for burial or cremation by means other than embalming, or the disposition or shipping of dead human bodies, or the provision or maintenance of a place for the preparation of dead human bodies.”); Antonin Scalia & Bryan | 1 | 1 |
Salvatore Bagnara v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2019Bagnara v. State, 189 So. 3d 167, 171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Bruno v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Bruno v. State, 807 So.2d 55, 63 (Fla. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Lesovsky v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Lesovsky v. State, 198 So.3d 988, 990 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Online Satellite Communication v. GMPCS Personal Communication, Inc.green1 sentence2016To meet the rare exception, a defendant must demonstrate not only ineffectiveness on the face of the record and indisputable prejudice, but also “an inconceivable tactical explanation for the conduct.” Morales v. State, 170 So.3d 63, 67 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Sampson v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Rather, in the case of fundamental error on direct appeal, the defendant has the initial burden of persuasion to show that there is a reasonable probability that the error was harmful or “prejudicial.” § 924.051(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2002); Sampson v. State, 903 So.2d 1055, 1056-57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Kidd v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Odeh has not shown that his case qualifies for the rare exception to this general rule where “the claimed ineffectiveness is apparent on the face of the record.” Kidd v. State, 978 So.2d 868, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Rollins, Inc. v. Butlandgreen1 sentence2011See Rollins, Inc., 951 So.2d at 873-75 . | 1 | 1 |
Crawford & Co. v. Baxlagreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., Crawford & Co. v. Baxla, 746 So.2d 576, 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (holding JCC’s error in admitting and relying upon inadmissible medical testimony was harmless where JCC also relied upon testimony of authorized IME, which essentially mirrored improperly admitted testimony, but explaining affir-mance under such facts “should be viewed as a rare exception” and noting, in the future, such erroneous admissions will likely result in reversal). | 1 | 1 |
Robert W. Baucom v. John R. Martin, as District Attorney Pro Tem, Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit, Georgiagreen1 sentence1984Concerning the role of the federal government in conducting udercover investigations involving the commission of acts by federal agents generally prohibited by state laws, it is now established that such conduct “must be the rare exception and be clearly seen to be reasonable, necessary and proper.” Baucom v. Martin, 677 F.2d 1346, 1351 (11th Cir. 1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McMillan v. State
green
2 sentences2016Roberts v. State, 374 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ingraham v. State, 32 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); McMillan v. State, 832 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Carver v. State, 560 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). 18 have occurred in November of 1872, more than five years earlier. 2016Roberts v. State, 374 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ingraham v. State, 32 So.3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); McMillan v. State, 832 So.2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Carver v. State, 560 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Carver v. State
green
2 sentences2016Roberts v. State, 374 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ingraham v. State, 32 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); McMillan v. State, 832 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Carver v. State, 560 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). 18 have occurred in November of 1872, more than five years earlier. 2016Roberts v. State, 374 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ingraham v. State, 32 So.3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); McMillan v. State, 832 So.2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Carver v. State, 560 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hart v. State
green
2 sentences2016Roberts v. State, 374 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ingraham v. State, 32 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); McMillan v. State, 832 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Carver v. State, 560 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). 18 have occurred in November of 1872, more than five years earlier. 2016Roberts v. State, 374 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ingraham v. State, 32 So.3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); McMillan v. State, 832 So.2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Carver v. State, 560 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ingraham v. State
green
2 sentences2016Roberts v. State, 374 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ingraham v. State, 32 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); McMillan v. State, 832 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Carver v. State, 560 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). 18 have occurred in November of 1872, more than five years earlier. 2016Roberts v. State, 374 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ingraham v. State, 32 So.3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); McMillan v. State, 832 So.2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Carver v. State, 560 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Roberts v. State
neutral
2 sentences2016Roberts v. State, 374 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ingraham v. State, 32 So. 3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); McMillan v. State, 832 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Carver v. State, 560 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). 18 have occurred in November of 1872, more than five years earlier. 2016Roberts v. State, 374 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ingraham v. State, 32 So.3d 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); McMillan v. State, 832 So.2d 946 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Hart v. State, 761 So.2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Carver v. State, 560 So.2d 258 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Koechli v. BIP Intern., Inc.
green
1 sentence2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
In re Amendment to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure-Rule 3.112 Minimum Standards for Attorneys in Capital Cases
green
1 sentence2002If the minimum standards we adopt today are to guide trial judges in carrying out this charge, the appointment of attorneys who do not meet the requirements of the rule must be the rare exception and done only when the "trial court has complete and unqualified confidence as to the quality of representation" that the appointed attorneys will provide. 759 So.2d at 613 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Gonzalez v. State
green
1 sentence1966Brill v. State, 1947, 159 Fla. 682 , 32 So.2d 607 . *523 We adopt the views stated by our Supreme Court, in Brill v. State, supra, p. 609: "* * * The hearing is in no sense a retrial of the main offense. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Brill v. State
green
1 sentence1966Brill v. State, 1947, 159 Fla. 682 , 32 So.2d 607 . *523 We adopt the views stated by our Supreme Court, in Brill v. State, supra, p. 609: "* * * The hearing is in no sense a retrial of the main offense. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.