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 2000–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clifton Brooks v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2016Following the procedure set forth in Brooks v. State, 180 So.3d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), we reverse Thomas’s judgment and sentence in this case, and remand for the trial court to hold a nunc pro tunc hearing to determine Thomas’s competency to stand trial. 2016We reverse petitioner’s judgment and sentence, and remand for the trial court to hold a nunc pro tunc hearing to determine petitioner’s competency to stand trial.' See Thomas v. State, 189 So.3d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); Brooks v. State, 180 So.3d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). | 6 | 6 |
Thomas v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Following the procedure set forth in Brooks v. State, 180 So.3d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), and followed in Thomas v. State, 189 So.3d 331, 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), we reverse Thurman’s judgment and sentence and order finding violation of probation, and remand for the trial court to hold a nunc pro tunc hearing to determine his competency to stand trial comporting with the requirements of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. 2016We reverse petitioner’s judgment and sentence, and remand for the trial court to hold a nunc pro tunc hearing to determine petitioner’s competency to stand trial.' See Thomas v. State, 189 So.3d 331 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016); Brooks v. State, 180 So.3d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). | 2 | 3 |
Mason v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See id. 2000See Mason v. State, 489 So.2d 734 (Fla.1986). | 2 | 2 |
Robert L. Rumph v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Rumph v. State, 217 So. 3d 1092 , 1094–97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); cf. Reynolds v. State, 177 So. 3d 296 , 297–99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). 2018See Rumph v. State , 217 So.3d 1092 , 1094-96 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). | 2 | 2 |
Bernard J. Dougherty v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2026Where a trial court fails to observe the procedures outlined in Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.210−3.212—“procedures determined to be adequate to protect a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial”—the supreme court determined that “the remedy for such a violation, a new trial or a nunc pro tunc hearing to determine competency, depends on the circumstances of each case.” Dougherty v. State, 149 So. 3d 672, 679 (Fla. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Parcilla v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Cf. Parcilla v. State, 257 So. 3d 156, 157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) ("We reverse and remand for the trial court to determine whether it can conduct a nunc pro tunc hearing regarding Parcilla's competency at the time of trial. | 1 | 1 |
Alcazar v. Stategreen1 sentence2019We granted that petition, remanding “for the trial court to hold a nunc pro tunc hearing to determine petitioner’s competency to stand trial.” Alcazar v. 2 State, 201 So. 3d 838, 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (“Alcazar II”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scottie D. Allen v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Ricardo Reshan Reynolds v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2018See Rumph v. State, 217 So. 3d 1092 , 1094–97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); cf. Reynolds v. State, 177 So. 3d 296 , 297–99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
MacAluso v. State
green
2 sentences2014Accordingly, we quash in part the Fifth District’s decision in Dougherty v. State, 96 So.3d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), and approve the decision of the Fourth District in Macaluso v. State, 12 So.3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), to the extent it is consistent with this opinion. 2014Accordingly, we quash in part the Fifth District’s decision in Dougherty v. State, 96 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), and approve the decision of the Fourth District in Macaluso v. State, 12 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), to the extent it is consistent with this opinion. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Dougherty v. State
neutral
2 sentences2014Accordingly, we quash in part the Fifth District’s decision in Dougherty v. State, 96 So.3d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), and approve the decision of the Fourth District in Macaluso v. State, 12 So.3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), to the extent it is consistent with this opinion. 2014Accordingly, we quash in part the Fifth District’s decision in Dougherty v. State, 96 So. 3d 984 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), and approve the decision of the Fourth District in Macaluso v. State, 12 So. 3d 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), to the extent it is consistent with this opinion. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.