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.
13 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Muhammad v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Id. at 370 (Pariente, J., specially concurring) (emphasis added). 2003I write separately to add that in accordance with my concurrence in Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343, 368-72 (Fla.2001), I would adopt a uniform procedure requiring the appointment of special counsel to present available mitigation: Because of the tremendous responsibilities placed on the trial court and this Court in death penalty cases, rather than leave the appointment of counsel to the trial court's discretion on a case-by-case basis, I would thus adopt a prospective rule that would provide for the appointment of special counsel to present available mitigation for the benefit of the jury, | 3 | 3 |
Cox v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Cox v. State, 412 So.2d 354 (Fla.1982) (reversal of judgment and sentence appropriate where trial court, over objection of State, accepted plea to lesser offense; jeopardy did not attach). | 1 | 1 |
Koon v. Duggergreen1 sentence2006I will continue to discuss it." (Emphasis supplied.) Even the trial judge expressly noted that "[i]f Mr. Hannon knowingly and intelligently waives his right to present mitigating evidence or circumstances, he has that right under the law." In Koon v. Dugger, 619 So.2d 246, 250 (Fla.1993), this Court acknowledged the "problems inherent in a trial record that does not adequately reflect a defendant's waiver of his right to present any mitigating evidence" and announced the following prospective rule to be applied in such situations: When a defendant, against his counsel's advice, refuses to perm | 1 | 1 |
Beta Eta House Corp., Inc. of Tallahassee v. Gregorygreen2 sentences1971NOTES [1] 223 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1969). [2] 237 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1970) [3] Id. at 165 . [4] Note 1, supra, at p. 718. [5] See, also, Montano v. Wigfield, (Fla. App. 1970) 239 So.2d 609 . [6] Note 2, supra, at p. 165. [7] Id. [8] (Fla.App. 1970), 239 So.2d 46 , 48. [9] Cf. Stecher, et al v. Pomeroy (Fla.App. 1971), 244 So.2d 488 . [10] See Authors' Comment to Rule 1.270, R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. 371. [11] See, also, Durrett v. Davidson, note 8, supra, at p. 48. [12] See, also, Judge Wigginton's comments in Beta Eta (Fla.App. 1970), 230 So.2d 495, 500 . [13] See both Shingleton and Beta Eta , notes 1 and 2 1971NOTES [1] 223 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1969). [2] 237 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1970) [3] Id. at 165 . [4] Note 1, supra, at p. 718. [5] See, also, Montano v. Wigfield, (Fla. App. 1970) 239 So.2d 609 . [6] Note 2, supra, at p. 165. [7] Id. [8] (Fla.App. 1970), 239 So.2d 46 , 48. [9] Cf. Stecher, et al v. Pomeroy (Fla.App. 1971), 244 So.2d 488 . [10] See Authors' Comment to Rule 1.270, R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. 371. [11] See, also, Durrett v. Davidson, note 8, supra, at p. 48. [12] See, also, Judge Wigginton's comments in Beta Eta (Fla.App. 1970), 230 So.2d 495, 500 . [13] See both Shingleton and Beta Eta , notes 1 and 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gonzalez v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERV.
neutral
1 sentence2003In Gonzalez v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 418 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), a pest control licensee stipulated that his license would be put on probation and that he waived the right to a chapter 120 hearing if he violated any statutes or regulations during the probationary period. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Cigarette Racing Team v. Parliament Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2003Co., 395 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). [9] Nothing in Shuster even remotely suggests that the carrier may be estopped to deny coverage simply because of negligence in investigating a prospective claim before any suit has been filed. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence1997Treating the date of issuance as the date of announcement for a prospective rule appears consistent with the discussion in Smith v. State, 598 So.2d 1063 (Fla.1992), but that opinion is not dispositive. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Martinez v. Scanlan
green
1 sentence1997In an analogous context, the supreme court chose the date its opinion in Martinez v. Scanlan, 582 So.2d 1167 (Fla.1991), was "filed" as the date when a statute was voided by that opinion. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Grossman v. State
green
1 sentence1990It was not until Grossman v. State, 525 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1988), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 1354 , 103 L.Ed.2d 822 (1989), that this Court established a prospective rule that all written orders imposing a death sentence should be filed concurrent with the pronouncement of death. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Cooper v. United States
green
1 sentence1990It was not until Grossman v. State, 525 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1988), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 1354 , 103 L.Ed.2d 822 (1989), that this Court established a prospective rule that all written orders imposing a death sentence should be filed concurrent with the pronouncement of death. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Upjohn Healthcare Services v. DEPT. OF HEALTH
neutral
1 sentence1988E.g., see Upjohn Healthcare Services v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 496 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (error not to apply revised rule adopted during pendency of administrative proceeding to applicant's case) and conversely Potter v. State, Dept. of Admin., 459 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (error to apply rule establishing attorney's ineligibility prior to date attorney notified of agency's decision to terminate his membership in retirement system). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Potter v. State, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement
green
1 sentence1988E.g., see Upjohn Healthcare Services v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 496 So.2d 147 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (error not to apply revised rule adopted during pendency of administrative proceeding to applicant's case) and conversely Potter v. State, Dept. of Admin., 459 So.2d 1170 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (error to apply rule establishing attorney's ineligibility prior to date attorney notified of agency's decision to terminate his membership in retirement system). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
D'ANNA v. State
green
1 sentence1985We do find it appropriate, however, particularly with respect to the videotaped lineup which may, by its very nature, be more suggestive of some prior involvement of the defendant with the criminal justice system, to reiterate the prospective warning of the D'Anna court that while the introduction of such evidence may be considered harmless error, "[t]hat the evidence of guilt in the case at bar was overwhelming is not an excuse for introducing other evidence that potentially affects adversely an accused's right to a fair trial." 453 So.2d at 153 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Dumas v. State
green
1 sentence1978The trial court, in a criminal prosecution, excluded a prospective defense witness for violation of the rule of sequestration 1 without complying with the procedures and principles laid down by the Supreme Court of Florida in Dumas v. State, 350 So.2d 464 (Fla.1977). 2 Therefore, the conviction must be reversed, with directions to grant the appellant a new trial. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Shingleton v. Bussey
green
1 sentence1971NOTES [1] 223 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1969). [2] 237 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1970) [3] Id. at 165 . [4] Note 1, supra, at p. 718. [5] See, also, Montano v. Wigfield, (Fla. App. 1970) 239 So.2d 609 . [6] Note 2, supra, at p. 165. [7] Id. [8] (Fla.App. 1970), 239 So.2d 46 , 48. [9] Cf. Stecher, et al v. Pomeroy (Fla.App. 1971), 244 So.2d 488 . [10] See Authors' Comment to Rule 1.270, R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. 371. [11] See, also, Durrett v. Davidson, note 8, supra, at p. 48. [12] See, also, Judge Wigginton's comments in Beta Eta (Fla.App. 1970), 230 So.2d 495, 500 . [13] See both Shingleton and Beta Eta , notes 1 and 2 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Durrett v. Davidson
green
1 sentence1971NOTES [1] 223 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1969). [2] 237 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1970) [3] Id. at 165 . [4] Note 1, supra, at p. 718. [5] See, also, Montano v. Wigfield, (Fla. App. 1970) 239 So.2d 609 . [6] Note 2, supra, at p. 165. [7] Id. [8] (Fla.App. 1970), 239 So.2d 46 , 48. [9] Cf. Stecher, et al v. Pomeroy (Fla.App. 1971), 244 So.2d 488 . [10] See Authors' Comment to Rule 1.270, R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. 371. [11] See, also, Durrett v. Davidson, note 8, supra, at p. 48. [12] See, also, Judge Wigginton's comments in Beta Eta (Fla.App. 1970), 230 So.2d 495, 500 . [13] See both Shingleton and Beta Eta , notes 1 and 2 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Stecher v. Pomeroy
neutral
1 sentence1971NOTES [1] 223 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1969). [2] 237 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1970) [3] Id. at 165 . [4] Note 1, supra, at p. 718. [5] See, also, Montano v. Wigfield, (Fla. App. 1970) 239 So.2d 609 . [6] Note 2, supra, at p. 165. [7] Id. [8] (Fla.App. 1970), 239 So.2d 46 , 48. [9] Cf. Stecher, et al v. Pomeroy (Fla.App. 1971), 244 So.2d 488 . [10] See Authors' Comment to Rule 1.270, R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. 371. [11] See, also, Durrett v. Davidson, note 8, supra, at p. 48. [12] See, also, Judge Wigginton's comments in Beta Eta (Fla.App. 1970), 230 So.2d 495, 500 . [13] See both Shingleton and Beta Eta , notes 1 and 2 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Beta Eta House Corporation v. Gregory
green
1 sentence1971NOTES [1] 223 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1969). [2] 237 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1970) [3] Id. at 165 . [4] Note 1, supra, at p. 718. [5] See, also, Montano v. Wigfield, (Fla. App. 1970) 239 So.2d 609 . [6] Note 2, supra, at p. 165. [7] Id. [8] (Fla.App. 1970), 239 So.2d 46 , 48. [9] Cf. Stecher, et al v. Pomeroy (Fla.App. 1971), 244 So.2d 488 . [10] See Authors' Comment to Rule 1.270, R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. 371. [11] See, also, Durrett v. Davidson, note 8, supra, at p. 48. [12] See, also, Judge Wigginton's comments in Beta Eta (Fla.App. 1970), 230 So.2d 495, 500 . [13] See both Shingleton and Beta Eta , notes 1 and 2 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Montano v. Wigfield
neutral
1 sentence1971NOTES [1] 223 So.2d 713 (Fla. 1969). [2] 237 So.2d 163 (Fla. 1970) [3] Id. at 165 . [4] Note 1, supra, at p. 718. [5] See, also, Montano v. Wigfield, (Fla. App. 1970) 239 So.2d 609 . [6] Note 2, supra, at p. 165. [7] Id. [8] (Fla.App. 1970), 239 So.2d 46 , 48. [9] Cf. Stecher, et al v. Pomeroy (Fla.App. 1971), 244 So.2d 488 . [10] See Authors' Comment to Rule 1.270, R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. 371. [11] See, also, Durrett v. Davidson, note 8, supra, at p. 48. [12] See, also, Judge Wigginton's comments in Beta Eta (Fla.App. 1970), 230 So.2d 495, 500 . [13] See both Shingleton and Beta Eta , notes 1 and 2 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.