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.
12 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dennis v. Stategreen2 sentences2020The court then turned its attention to whether the procedural amendment applies retroactively and ultimately determined that it does trial court must then “decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity.” Id. (quoting Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456, 458 (Fla. 2010)). 2 not. 2019The trial court must then “decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity.” Id. (quoting Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456, 458 (Fla. 2010)). for immunity, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that immunity does not apply. | 8 | 10 |
Plumhoff v. Rickardgreen1 sentence2018See also Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014) (allowing interlocutory appeal of summary-judgment order denying qualified immunity, and distinguishing Johnson on the ground that the disputed issue in Johnson was purely factual). | 1 | 1 |
Steinhorst v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., Steinhorst v. State, 636 So.2d 498, 500 (Fla.1994) (concluding that trial court should have treated criminal defendant’s motion, improperly designated as being filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, as being properly filed *463 pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850); cf. Barrett v. State, 965 So.2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“Article V, section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution requires that no cause be dismissed because an improper remedy has been sought. | 1 | 1 |
Barrett v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See, e.g., Steinhorst v. State, 636 So.2d 498, 500 (Fla.1994) (concluding that trial court should have treated criminal defendant’s motion, improperly designated as being filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, as being properly filed *463 pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850); cf. Barrett v. State, 965 So.2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“Article V, section 2(a) of the Florida Constitution requires that no cause be dismissed because an improper remedy has been sought. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jared Bretherick v. State of Florida
red
2 sentences2019The trial court must then “decide the factual question of the applicability of the statutory immunity.” Id. (quoting Dennis v. State, 51 So. 3d 456, 458 (Fla. 2010)). for immunity, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that immunity does not apply. 2019That issue was later decided in Bretherick v. State, 170 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 2015). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
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.
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.