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 1981–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
WILLIE JEFFERSON v. STATE OF FLORIDAgreen2 sentences2024See Edwards v. State, 351 So. 3d 1142 , 1146 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022); Corbett v. State, 348 So. 3d 645 , 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022); Jefferson v. State, 264 So. 3d 1019, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018). 2019See Jefferson, 264 So. 3d at 1023 ("[P]rohibition is the appropriate remedy when the appellate court determines on the merits that the defendant is entitled to immunity under the Stand Your Ground law, the reason being that the lower court has no authority to proceed against an immunized defendant."); Little v. State, 111 So. 3d 214 , 216 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). | 2 | 2 |
Little v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Jefferson, 264 So. 3d at 1023 ("[P]rohibition is the appropriate remedy when the appellate court determines on the merits that the defendant is entitled to immunity under the Stand Your Ground law, the reason being that the lower court has no authority to proceed against an immunized defendant."); Little v. State, 111 So. 3d 214 , 216 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). 2018See Little v. State, 111 So. 3d 214 , 216 n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (explaining that "the supreme court has consistently held" that prohibition "is an appropriate vehicle to review orders denying motions to dismiss criminal prosecutions based on immunity"). | 1 | 2 |
Twilegar v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., Galavis v. State, 28 So.3d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (State’s burden is to produce evidence “inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence that the defendant propos es.”) (emphasis in original) (citing Twilegar v. State, 42 So.3d 177 (Fla.2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Tucker v. Reshagreen1 sentence2013See Tucker v. Resha, 648 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla.1994); Rodriguez, 67 So.3d at 1219 -20 & nn. 3-4. | 1 | 1 |
Boladares v. Olemshoe Corp.green1 sentence2013See, e.g., Galavis v. State, 28 So.3d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (State’s burden is to produce evidence “inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence that the defendant propos es.”) (emphasis in original) (citing Twilegar v. State, 42 So.3d 177 (Fla.2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Miami-Dade County v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2013See Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Rodriguez, 67 So.3d 1213, 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), rev. granted, 76 So.3d 938 (Fla. Dec. 1, 2011). 2 This holding in Rodriguez is consistent with the host of cases where certiorari jurisdiction was properly invoked to review trial court orders denying other types of immunities from suit. 3 The reasoning underlying these decisions is that if the defendant is entitled to immunity from suit, it is the trial itself that constitutes the material harm. 2013See Tucker v. Resha, 648 So.2d 1187, 1189 (Fla.1994); Rodriguez, 67 So.3d at 1219 -20 & nn. 3-4. | 1 | 1 |
Lucas v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Rodriguez, 67 So.3d 1213, 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), rev. granted, 76 So.3d 938 (Fla. Dec. 1, 2011). 2 This holding in Rodriguez is consistent with the host of cases where certiorari jurisdiction was properly invoked to review trial court orders denying other types of immunities from suit. 3 The reasoning underlying these decisions is that if the defendant is entitled to immunity from suit, it is the trial itself that constitutes the material harm. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Salvuccigreen1 sentence1981United States v. Salvucci, supra, 448 U.S. at 87, note 4 , 100 S.Ct. at 2550, note 4, 65 L.Ed.2d at 625, note 4. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rakas v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2006Applegate requires us to consider any theory on appeal that would sustain the trial court's decision, so long as it is consistent with the facts on which the decision was based."). [3] In Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978), the Supreme Court also discarded reliance on the separate term "standing" in determining whether a defendant is entitled to claim the protections of the exclusionary rule. 2006Applegate requires us to consider any theory on appeal that would sustain the trial court's decision, so long as it is consistent with the facts on which the decision was based."). [3] In Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978), the Supreme Court also discarded reliance on the separate term "standing" in determining whether a defendant is entitled to claim the protections of the exclusionary rule. | 5 | 1985–2006 |
Dean v. State
green
2 sentences1988In Dean v. State, 478 So.2d 38 (Fla. 1985), this Court expressly adopted the "single-treatment analysis" for determining whether a defendant is entitled to challenge a search or seizure as violative of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution, as espoused by the United States Supreme Court in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). 1985In Dean v. State, 478 So.2d 38 (Fla.1985) a case not available to the trial court at the time the ruling was made here, the Florida supreme court receded from earlier cases in which it had held that the issue of standing was to be decided separate and apart from the substantive issues, saying: In Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 [ 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 ] (1978), the United States Supreme Court discarded reliance on concepts of “standing” in determining whether a defendant is entitled to claim the protections of the exclusionary rule. | 2 | 1985–1988 |
State v. Callaway
green
1 sentence1996While this test still applies, the recent decisions in State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla.1995), and Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995), appear to further narrow the scope of relief available under this rule. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Davis v. State
green
1 sentence1996While this test still applies, the recent decisions in State v. Callaway, 658 So.2d 983 (Fla.1995), and Davis v. State, 661 So.2d 1193 (Fla.1995), appear to further narrow the scope of relief available under this rule. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Jacobs v. Alabama
green
1 sentence1988NOTES [1] Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978), reh'g denied, 439 U.S. 1122 , 99 S.Ct. 1035 , 59 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979), in which the United States Supreme Court subsumed the standing requirement under substantive fourth amendment doctrine in determining whether a defendant is entitled to claim the protections of the exclusionary rule. [2] In Jones, the Court held that defendants who are charged with crimes of possession were not required to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises searched or the property seized because they were entitled to a | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.