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 |
|---|---|---|
Maharaj v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) ("[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996))). 2018See Freeman v. State , 761 So.2d 1055 , 1061 (Fla. 2000) ("[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing Maharaj v. State , 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996) ) ). | 2 | 2 |
Freeman v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Freeman v. State, 761 So. 2d 1055, 1061 (Fla. 2000) ("[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing Maharaj v. State, 684 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 1996))). 2018See Freeman v. State , 761 So.2d 1055 , 1061 (Fla. 2000) ("[A] defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on a postconviction relief motion unless (1) the motion, files, and records in the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief, or (2) the motion or a particular claim is legally insufficient." (citing Maharaj v. State , 684 So.2d 726 (Fla. 1996) ) ). | 2 | 2 |
Martinez v. Stategreen2 sentences2013In Martinez , the Florida Supreme Court declined to find the omission of a jury instruction on self-defense fundamental error because, not only was the affirmative defense not the “sole, or even his primary defense strategy” but also because “Martinez’s claim of self-defense was extremely weak.” Id. at 456 . 2013The court stated that Martinez’s claim that he “had to fight for his life and did not have an opportunity to leave the room strained even the most remote bounds of credulity.” Id. | 1 | 3 |
Martinez v. FORD MIDWAY MALL, INC.green1 sentence2013Martinez v. Ford Midway Mall, Inc., 59 So.3d 168, 174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). | 1 | 1 |
VOWELS v. Stategreen2 sentences2011See 32 So.3d at 721 . 2011See 32 So.3d at 721 . | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Stategreen1 sentence2009See Martin, 800 So.2d 363 . | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Henry v. State, 629 So.2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Harris v. State, 619 So.2d 340, 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Henry v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Henry v. State, 629 So.2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Harris v. State, 619 So.2d 340, 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ward v. State
green
1 sentence2024In this case, the officers’ testimony merely explained their pursuit of Martinez to establish that the arrest was lawful, which is an element of resisting an officer without violence and did not violate the order granting Martinez’s motion in limine.3 2 Edwards v. State, 313 So. 3d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021); Ward v. State, 59 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Tillman v.State, 964 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Tillman v. State
green
1 sentence2024In this case, the officers’ testimony merely explained their pursuit of Martinez to establish that the arrest was lawful, which is an element of resisting an officer without violence and did not violate the order granting Martinez’s motion in limine.3 2 Edwards v. State, 313 So. 3d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021); Ward v. State, 59 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Tillman v.State, 964 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Jose Martinez v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2017The Fourth District affirmed the denial of Martinez’s motion, holding that the alleged charging defect in this case did not “result[] in an illegal sentence subject to correction at any time under Rule 3.800(a).” Martinez, 169 So.3d at 172 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Long v. State
green
1 sentence1990We find that the district court's decision conflicts with our decision in Long v. State, 517 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1754 , 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1988), and the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Fields v. State, 402 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Martinez v. State
green
1 sentence1990We have for review Martinez v. State, 544 So.2d 310 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), in which the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of Martinez's motion to suppress his taped statement and concluded that Martinez's responses concerning his right to counsel were not equivocal. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Northern Group Services, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
1 sentence1990We find that the district court's decision conflicts with our decision in Long v. State, 517 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1754 , 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1988), and the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Fields v. State, 402 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. v. Metrix Warehouse, Inc.
green
1 sentence1990We find that the district court's decision conflicts with our decision in Long v. State, 517 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1754 , 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1988), and the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Fields v. State, 402 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Fields v. State
green
1 sentence1990We find that the district court's decision conflicts with our decision in Long v. State, 517 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1987), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1017 , 108 S.Ct. 1754 , 100 L.Ed.2d 216 (1988), and the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Fields v. State, 402 So.2d 46 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Agrico Chemical v. DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL REG.
neutral
1 sentence1981Since our jurisdiction to determine the validity of the order in question is clear, and a notice of cross-appeal is not jurisdictional County Sanitation v. Ross, 389 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Safeco Insurance Company v. Rochow, 384 So.2d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 380 So.2d 503 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Forte, 379 So.2d 1334 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), and since the City makes no claim of lack of notice or prejudice, we treat Martinez's brief as sufficient notice to the City that he cross-appea | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Safeco Ins. Co. v. Rochow
green
1 sentence1981Since our jurisdiction to determine the validity of the order in question is clear, and a notice of cross-appeal is not jurisdictional County Sanitation v. Ross, 389 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Safeco Insurance Company v. Rochow, 384 So.2d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 380 So.2d 503 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Forte, 379 So.2d 1334 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), and since the City makes no claim of lack of notice or prejudice, we treat Martinez's brief as sufficient notice to the City that he cross-appea | 1 | 1981–1981 |
BRICKELL BAY CLUB CONDO. ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Forte
green
1 sentence1981Since our jurisdiction to determine the validity of the order in question is clear, and a notice of cross-appeal is not jurisdictional County Sanitation v. Ross, 389 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Safeco Insurance Company v. Rochow, 384 So.2d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 380 So.2d 503 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Forte, 379 So.2d 1334 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), and since the City makes no claim of lack of notice or prejudice, we treat Martinez's brief as sufficient notice to the City that he cross-appea | 1 | 1981–1981 |
County Sanitation v. Ross
green
1 sentence1981Since our jurisdiction to determine the validity of the order in question is clear, and a notice of cross-appeal is not jurisdictional County Sanitation v. Ross, 389 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Safeco Insurance Company v. Rochow, 384 So.2d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 380 So.2d 503 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Forte, 379 So.2d 1334 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), and since the City makes no claim of lack of notice or prejudice, we treat Martinez's brief as sufficient notice to the City that he cross-appea | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.