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 1947–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gardner v. Murphygreen2 sentences2001Houser, 719 So.2d at 308 (quoting Murphy, 402 So.2d at 526 ) (emphasis supplied). 1998Gardner v. Murphy, 402 So.2d 525, 526 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (citations omitted; emphasis added). | 1 | 2 |
Tolbert v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Bertolotti v. Dugger, 514 So. 2d 1095, 1096 (Fla. 1987) (“[T]o preserve an issue for appellate review, the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court.”); see also Tolbert v. State, 679 So. 2d 816, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (en banc) (finding that, although a necessary element of the lesser included offense was not alleged in the information, the defendant’s objections were not specific enough to preserve the issue for appellate review); Wilson v. State, 383 So. 2d 670, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (finding that the defendant cannot claim error on app 2015Bertolotti v. Dugger, 514 So.2d 1095, 1096 (Fla.1987) (“[T]o preserve an issue for appellate review, the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court.”); see also Tolbert v. State, 679 So.2d 816, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (en banc) (finding that, although a necessary element of the lesser included offense was not alleged in the information, the defendant’s objections were not specific enough to preserve the issue for appellate review); Wilson v. State, 383 So.2d 670, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (finding that the defendant cannot claim error on appeal | 1 | 1 |
Bertolotti v. Duggergreen2 sentences2015Bertolotti v. Dugger, 514 So. 2d 1095, 1096 (Fla. 1987) (“[T]o preserve an issue for appellate review, the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court.”); see also Tolbert v. State, 679 So. 2d 816, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (en banc) (finding that, although a necessary element of the lesser included offense was not alleged in the information, the defendant’s objections were not specific enough to preserve the issue for appellate review); Wilson v. State, 383 So. 2d 670, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (finding that the defendant cannot claim error on app 2015Bertolotti v. Dugger, 514 So.2d 1095, 1096 (Fla.1987) (“[T]o preserve an issue for appellate review, the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court.”); see also Tolbert v. State, 679 So.2d 816, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (en banc) (finding that, although a necessary element of the lesser included offense was not alleged in the information, the defendant’s objections were not specific enough to preserve the issue for appellate review); Wilson v. State, 383 So.2d 670, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (finding that the defendant cannot claim error on appeal | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Bertolotti v. Dugger, 514 So. 2d 1095, 1096 (Fla. 1987) (“[T]o preserve an issue for appellate review, the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court.”); see also Tolbert v. State, 679 So. 2d 816, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (en banc) (finding that, although a necessary element of the lesser included offense was not alleged in the information, the defendant’s objections were not specific enough to preserve the issue for appellate review); Wilson v. State, 383 So. 2d 670, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (finding that the defendant cannot claim error on app 2015Bertolotti v. Dugger, 514 So.2d 1095, 1096 (Fla.1987) (“[T]o preserve an issue for appellate review, the specific legal argument or ground upon which it is based must be presented to the trial court.”); see also Tolbert v. State, 679 So.2d 816, 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (en banc) (finding that, although a necessary element of the lesser included offense was not alleged in the information, the defendant’s objections were not specific enough to preserve the issue for appellate review); Wilson v. State, 383 So.2d 670, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (finding that the defendant cannot claim error on appeal | 1 | 1 |
Hartley v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Hunter v. State, 48 So.3d 836 (Fla.2010) (additional cases cited therein); Hartley v. State, 990 So.2d 1008, 1016 (Fla.2008) (‘“[A]ll courts’ have held, that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a right to the effective assistance of posteonviction counsel”). | 1 | 1 |
Munoz Ex Rel. Munoz v. South Miami Hosp., Inc.green1 sentence2005In Goolsby v. Qazi, 847 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), we stated that we agreed with the majority in Munoz v. South Miami Hospital, Inc., 764 So.2d 854, 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), which stated that a defendant cannot claim the defendant's failure to warn had no effect on the outcome when, if the defendant had made the proper warning, we would know for sure whether the outcome would have been affected: [I]t is not for the defendants, who putatively violated their standard of care by failing to warn, to argue that their not doing so had no effect on the situation, when their doing the appropriate | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence1999See, e.g., Brown v. State, 659 So.2d 1260, 1261 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2014This is so because, as this court recognized in Jackson, 842 So.2d at 1041 , the Department has sole discretion in awarding or revoking an inmate’s gain time, and the courts have no authority to countermand the Department’s forfeiture of gain time. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Goolsby v. Qazi
green
1 sentence2005In Goolsby v. Qazi, 847 So.2d 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003), we stated that we agreed with the majority in Munoz v. South Miami Hospital, Inc., 764 So.2d 854, 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000), which stated that a defendant cannot claim the defendant's failure to warn had no effect on the outcome when, if the defendant had made the proper warning, we would know for sure whether the outcome would have been affected: [I]t is not for the defendants, who putatively violated their standard of care by failing to warn, to argue that their not doing so had no effect on the situation, when their doing the appropriate | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Mann v. State
green
1 sentence2002Mann, 622 So.2d at 596-97 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Houser v. Manning
green
1 sentence2001Houser, 719 So.2d at 308 (quoting Murphy, 402 So.2d at 526 ) (emphasis supplied). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counts v. State
green
1 sentence1995Counts v. State, 376 So.2d 59 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Counce
green
1 sentence1986E.g., State v. Counce, 392 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Combs v. State
green
1 sentence1985The circuit court affirmed with the statement that “a Defendant cannot claim error when her attorney asks an unsophisticated prosecution witness the question ‘only thing you saw her do was run?’ and receives a response undesirable to Defendant, even if the trial court before trial had specifically ruled the contents of the response unadmissible.” In Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93 (Fla.1983), the supreme court discussed at length the scope of review by a district court of appeal on petition for certiorari to review an appellate decision of a circuit court. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Bowden v. State
green
2 sentences1947In affirming this judgment, the Court said: “The offense of which there has been a conviction is included within or may be carved out of that major offense charged in the indictment and the indictment is sufficient to sustain the conviction . . . and the fact that the evidence is more than sufficient to support the conviction does not render it insufficient to do so and the prisoner is in nowise hurt by that excess of its probative force which the jury has ignored.” See also Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149 , 113 So. 726 , Prevatt v. State, 82 Fla. 284 , 89 So. 807 , Bowden v. State, 152 Fla. 715 1947In affirming this judgment, the Court said: “The offense of which there has been a conviction is included within or may be carved out of that major offense charged in the indictment and the indictment is sufficient to sustain the conviction . . . and the fact that the evidence is more than sufficient to support the conviction does not render it insufficient to do so and the prisoner is in nowise hurt by that excess of its probative force which the jury has ignored.” See also Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149 , 113 So. 726 , Prevatt v. State, 82 Fla. 284 , 89 So. 807 , Bowden v. State, 152 Fla. 715 | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Roberts v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences1947In affirming this judgment, the Court said: “The offense of which there has been a conviction is included within or may be carved out of that major offense charged in the indictment and the indictment is sufficient to sustain the conviction . . . and the fact that the evidence is more than sufficient to support the conviction does not render it insufficient to do so and the prisoner is in nowise hurt by that excess of its probative force which the jury has ignored.” See also Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149 , 113 So. 726 , Prevatt v. State, 82 Fla. 284 , 89 So. 807 , Bowden v. State, 152 Fla. 715 1947In affirming this judgment, the Court said: “The offense of which there has been a conviction is included within or may be carved out of that major offense charged in the indictment and the indictment is sufficient to sustain the conviction . . . and the fact that the evidence is more than sufficient to support the conviction does not render it insufficient to do so and the prisoner is in nowise hurt by that excess of its probative force which the jury has ignored.” See also Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149 , 113 So. 726 , Prevatt v. State, 82 Fla. 284 , 89 So. 807 , Bowden v. State, 152 Fla. 715 | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence1947What reason impelled the jury to return a verdict of murder in the second degree need not be inquired into, as a verdict of murder in that degree will be sustained if the evidence would support a verdict of a higher degree of homicide, because the defendant’s guilt as to each grade of unlawful homicide is involved upon a trial for murder in the first degree,” and further stated, “The evidence was ample to support a verdict of murder in the first degree, and the defendant cannot claim reasonably to be injured by the verdict because the evidence was more than sufficient to convict him.” In Brown | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Prevatt v. State
green
2 sentences1947In affirming this judgment, the Court said: “The offense of which there has been a conviction is included within or may be carved out of that major offense charged in the indictment and the indictment is sufficient to sustain the conviction . . . and the fact that the evidence is more than sufficient to support the conviction does not render it insufficient to do so and the prisoner is in nowise hurt by that excess of its probative force which the jury has ignored.” See also Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149 , 113 So. 726 , Prevatt v. State, 82 Fla. 284 , 89 So. 807 , Bowden v. State, 152 Fla. 715 1947In affirming this judgment, the Court said: “The offense of which there has been a conviction is included within or may be carved out of that major offense charged in the indictment and the indictment is sufficient to sustain the conviction . . . and the fact that the evidence is more than sufficient to support the conviction does not render it insufficient to do so and the prisoner is in nowise hurt by that excess of its probative force which the jury has ignored.” See also Roberts v. State, 94 Fla. 149 , 113 So. 726 , Prevatt v. State, 82 Fla. 284 , 89 So. 807 , Bowden v. State, 152 Fla. 715 | 1 | 1947–1947 |
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.