motion for relief rule in Florida

12 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2023 2 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
Archer v. Stategreen fla · 2006 · cited in 3 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2016–2023 2 sentences 2023Rather, it is 6 the discovery of the existence of admissible evidence demonstrating that Wilson was not the person who committed the crime that renders such evidence ‘newly-discovered’ and permits him to assert this evidence in support of a motion for relief under rule 3.850”); Archer v. State, 934 So. 2d 1187, 1194 (Fla. 2006) (rejecting rationale that the affidavit of a recanting witness cannot be considered “newly discovered” because defendant knew at the time of the trial that the witness was lying); Nordelo v. State, 93 So. 3d 178, 187 (Fla. 2012) (noting that the facts set forth in a co- 2017See Wilson v. State, 188 So.3d 82, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“[I]t is the discovery of the existence of admissible evidence demonstrating that [the defendant] was not the person who committed the crime that renders such evidence ‘newly-discovered’ and permits [the defendant] to assert this evidence in support of a motion for relief under rule 3.850.” (citing Archer v. State, 934 So.2d 1187, 1194 (Fla. 2006); Nordelo v. State, 93 So.3d 178, 185 (Fla. 2012); Jones v. State, 106 So.3d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Harris v. State, 128 So.3d 44, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012))).	2	3
Jones v. Stategreen fla · 2012 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2017–2023 2 sentences 2023Rather, it is 6 the discovery of the existence of admissible evidence demonstrating that Wilson was not the person who committed the crime that renders such evidence ‘newly-discovered’ and permits him to assert this evidence in support of a motion for relief under rule 3.850”); Archer v. State, 934 So. 2d 1187, 1194 (Fla. 2006) (rejecting rationale that the affidavit of a recanting witness cannot be considered “newly discovered” because defendant knew at the time of the trial that the witness was lying); Nordelo v. State, 93 So. 3d 178, 187 (Fla. 2012) (noting that the facts set forth in a co- 2017See Wilson v. State, 188 So.3d 82, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“[I]t is the discovery of the existence of admissible evidence demonstrating that [the defendant] was not the person who committed the crime that renders such evidence ‘newly-discovered’ and permits [the defendant] to assert this evidence in support of a motion for relief under rule 3.850.” (citing Archer v. State, 934 So.2d 1187, 1194 (Fla. 2006); Nordelo v. State, 93 So.3d 178, 185 (Fla. 2012); Jones v. State, 106 So.3d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Harris v. State, 128 So.3d 44, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012))).	2	2
Purse v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2016 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 1 sentence 2022See Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Brogdon, 185 So. 3d 627 , 629–30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (reversing the denial of a motion for relief under rule 1.540(b) in a case where the undisputed evidence established that counsel’s failure to appear was due to excusable neglect).	1	1
Wilson v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2016 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017See Wilson v. State, 188 So.3d 82, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“[I]t is the discovery of the existence of admissible evidence demonstrating that [the defendant] was not the person who committed the crime that renders such evidence ‘newly-discovered’ and permits [the defendant] to assert this evidence in support of a motion for relief under rule 3.850.” (citing Archer v. State, 934 So.2d 1187, 1194 (Fla. 2006); Nordelo v. State, 93 So.3d 178, 185 (Fla. 2012); Jones v. State, 106 So.3d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Harris v. State, 128 So.3d 44, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012))).	1	1
Harris v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017See Wilson v. State, 188 So.3d 82, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“[I]t is the discovery of the existence of admissible evidence demonstrating that [the defendant] was not the person who committed the crime that renders such evidence ‘newly-discovered’ and permits [the defendant] to assert this evidence in support of a motion for relief under rule 3.850.” (citing Archer v. State, 934 So.2d 1187, 1194 (Fla. 2006); Nordelo v. State, 93 So.3d 178, 185 (Fla. 2012); Jones v. State, 106 So.3d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Harris v. State, 128 So.3d 44, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012))).	1	1
In Re Guardianship of Schiavogreen fladistctapp · 2001 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015A motion for relief under rule 1.540(b)(5) “must allege new circumstances affecting the decision made by the trial judge.” In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 792 So.2d 551, 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Miami-Dade Cty. v. Second Sunrise Inv.	1	1
Miami-Dade County v. Second Sunrise Investment Corp.green fladistctapp · 2011 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015Corp., 56 So.3d 82, 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (explaining that rule 1.540(b)(5) provides relief for circumstances arising only after entry of final judgment).	1	1
Logan v. Stategreen fla · 2003 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 1 sentence 2004See Logan v. State, 846 So.2d 472, 474 (Fla.2003).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Burns v. State green fladistctapp · 2003 1 sentence 2023Rather, it is 6 the discovery of the existence of admissible evidence demonstrating that Wilson was not the person who committed the crime that renders such evidence ‘newly-discovered’ and permits him to assert this evidence in support of a motion for relief under rule 3.850”); Archer v. State, 934 So. 2d 1187, 1194 (Fla. 2006) (rejecting rationale that the affidavit of a recanting witness cannot be considered “newly discovered” because defendant knew at the time of the trial that the witness was lying); Nordelo v. State, 93 So. 3d 178, 187 (Fla. 2012) (noting that the facts set forth in a co-	1	2023–2023
Jones v. State neutral fladistctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2017See Wilson v. State, 188 So.3d 82, 85 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“[I]t is the discovery of the existence of admissible evidence demonstrating that [the defendant] was not the person who committed the crime that renders such evidence ‘newly-discovered’ and permits [the defendant] to assert this evidence in support of a motion for relief under rule 3.850.” (citing Archer v. State, 934 So.2d 1187, 1194 (Fla. 2006); Nordelo v. State, 93 So.3d 178, 185 (Fla. 2012); Jones v. State, 106 So.3d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Harris v. State, 128 So.3d 44, 46 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012))).	1	2017–2017
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Krathen green fladistctapp · 1985 1 sentence 2009Inc. v. Krathen, 471 So.2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 484 So.2d 7 (Fla.1986) (holding that a party to a consent judgment who later filed a motion for relief under rule 1.540(b) was not entitled to relief because she misunderstood the legal meaning of the agreement).	1	2009–2009
Gibson v. Buice green fladistctapp · 1980 1 sentence 2008Id.	1	2008–2008
Peart v. State green fla · 2000 1 sentence 2008In that opinion, the Florida Supreme Court held that (1) rule 3.850 was the proper procedural vehicle for claimants, who were in or out of custody, and who had become "subject to deportation," to move to withdraw their pleas; (2) the two-year limitations period in rule 3.850 would begin to run "when the defendant has or should have knowledge of the threat of deportation based on the plea," Peart, 756 So.2d at 46 ; (3) defendants who gained such knowledge prior to its decision (April 13, 2000), would have two years from the date of its decision within which to file a motion for relief under rul	1	2008–2008
Farish v. Lum's, Inc. green fla · 1972 1 sentence 2005In Farish v. Lum's, Inc., 267 So.2d 325 (Fla.1972), the defendant failed to swear to and sign the answers to request for admission.	1	2005–2005
Catis v. State green fladistctapp · 1998 1 sentence 1999In Catis v. State, 741 So.2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), rev. denied, 735 So.2d 1284 (Fla.1999), we confronted a rule 3.850 motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to interview key witnesses who would have refuted prosecution witnesses.	1	1999–1999
Rusciano v. State neutral fladistctapp · 1991 1 sentence 1991Taylor v. State, 583 So.2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Noble v. State, 578 So.2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Gentry v. State, 464 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).	1	1991–1991
Gentry v. State green fladistctapp · 1985 1 sentence 1991Taylor v. State, 583 So.2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Noble v. State, 578 So.2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Gentry v. State, 464 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).	1	1991–1991
AMR v. State green fladistctapp · 1991 1 sentence 1991Taylor v. State, 583 So.2d 823 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Noble v. State, 578 So.2d 63 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Gentry v. State, 464 So.2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).	1	1991–1991

Where else courts name it

IL 14 (2024–2026) FL 12 (1991–2023) CA 7 (1971–2024) MA 5 (1986–2025) TX 2 (2007–2007)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check