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 1964–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Schoppgreen2 sentences2012The inquiry at that hearing is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the discovery violation ‘materially hindered the defendant’s trial preparation or strategy.’ ” Scipio v. State, 928 So.2d 1138, 1150 (Fla.2006) (quoting State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995)). 2009The inquiry at that hearing is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the discovery violation ‘materially hindered the defendant’s trial preparation or strategy.’ ” Scipio v. State, 928 So.2d 1138, 1150 (Fla.2006) (quoting State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995)). | 2 | 3 |
Scipio v. Stategreen2 sentences2012The inquiry at that hearing is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the discovery violation ‘materially hindered the defendant’s trial preparation or strategy.’ ” Scipio v. State, 928 So.2d 1138, 1150 (Fla.2006) (quoting State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995)). 2009The inquiry at that hearing is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the discovery violation ‘materially hindered the defendant’s trial preparation or strategy.’ ” Scipio v. State, 928 So.2d 1138, 1150 (Fla.2006) (quoting State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995)). | 2 | 3 |
JMB v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See J.M.B. v. State, 800 So.2d 317, 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (“[B]ecause the inquiry under rule 8.080 was incomplete, there was no effective waiver of counsel under rule 8.165.”). 2005See J.M.B. v. State, 800 So.2d 317, 318 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ("[B]ecause the inquiry under rule 8.080 was incomplete, there was no effective waiver of counsel under rule 8.165."). | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2009“The inquiry is whether the violation ‘materially hindered the defendant’s trial preparation or strategy.’ ” Id. at 506 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Melbourne v. State
green
1 sentence2014Because the trial court had yet to reach these thirty people in the jury selection process, they were not relevant comparators in an inquiry of whether the defense was attempting to exercise a peremptory strike “based on a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged juror.” Melbourne, 679 So.2d at 764 n. 8. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Duckworth v. Eagan
green
2 sentences2004In Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 203 , 109 S.Ct. 2875 , 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989), the Court reiterated that reviewing courts "need not examine Miranda warnings as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement." Rather, the inquiry is whether the warning uses equivalent and adequate language that fulfills the substantive requirements of Miranda. 2004In Duckworth v. Eagan, 492 U.S. 195, 203 , 109 S.Ct. 2875 , 106 L.Ed.2d 166 (1989), the Court reiterated that reviewing courts "need not examine Miranda warnings as if construing a will or defining the terms of an easement." Rather, the inquiry is whether the warning uses equivalent and adequate language that fulfills the substantive requirements of Miranda. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Neil
green
1 sentence1993I believe that in circumstances where a trial judge failed to conduct an inquiry in violation of State v. Neil, 457 So.2d 481 (Fla. 1984), the cause should be remanded to the trial judge to conduct such a hearing. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Kleinfeld v. State
green
1 sentence1992Kleinfeld v. State, 568 So.2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 167 (Fla.1991), appeal after remand, 587 So.2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Kleinfeld
green
1 sentence1992Kleinfeld v. State, 568 So.2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 581 So.2d 167 (Fla.1991), appeal after remand, 587 So.2d 592 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Knight v. State
green
1 sentence1965We distinguish this case from Knight v. State, Fla.App.1964, 164 So.2d 229 , where we held that a contention presented in a Criminal Rule 1 petition of insanity at the time of trial warranted an inquiry and hearing as provided for in § 917.01, Fla. Stat., F.S.A. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Kathleen Citrus Land Co. v. City of Lakeland
green
2 sentences1964Kathleen Citrus Land Co. v. City of Lake-land, 124 Fla. 659 , 169 So. 356 ; Rudman v. Baine, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 760 . 1964Kathleen Citrus Land Co. v. City of Lake-land, 124 Fla. 659 , 169 So. 356 ; Rudman v. Baine, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 760 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Rudman v. Baine
green
1 sentence1964Kathleen Citrus Land Co. v. City of Lake-land, 124 Fla. 659 , 169 So. 356 ; Rudman v. Baine, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 760 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.