specified standard in Florida

2006In Armstrong v. State, 642 So.2d 730 (Fla. 1994), this Court specified the standard for granting a new trial based upon a claim of newly discovered evidence that a witness called on behalf of the prosecution at trial has recanted his or her testimony: Recantation by a witness called on behalf of the prosecution does not necessarily entitle a defendant to a new trial.

2006Brown v. State, 381 So.2d 690 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1118 , 101 S.Ct. 931 , 66 L.Ed.2d 847 (1981); Bell v. State, 90 So.2d 704 (Fla.1956).

2006Brown v. State, 381 So.2d 690 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1118 , 101 S.Ct. 931 , 66 L.Ed.2d 847 (1981); Bell v. State, 90 So.2d 704 (Fla.1956).

2006Brown v. State, 381 So.2d 690 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1118 , 101 S.Ct. 931 , 66 L.Ed.2d 847 (1981); Bell v. State, 90 So.2d 704 (Fla.1956).

2006Brown v. State, 381 So.2d 690 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1118 , 101 S.Ct. 931 , 66 L.Ed.2d 847 (1981); Bell v. State, 90 So.2d 704 (Fla.1956).

2006Brown v. State, 381 So.2d 690 (Fla.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1118 , 101 S.Ct. 931 , 66 L.Ed.2d 847 (1981); Bell v. State, 90 So.2d 704 (Fla.1956).

2002In holding that emotional distress damages claimed pursuant to the statute were not subject to proof under the impact rule, this Court based its reasoning on the language of the statute itself, which stated that damages "shall include those ... which are reasonably foreseeable result of a specified violation of this section." 712 So.2d at 392 .

1999Love PGI Partners, 706 So.2d at 892-893 .

1986Cf. State v. Hetland, 366 So.2d 831, 833 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), approved, 387 So.2d 963 (Fla. 1980) (anonymous tip that named individual described as white male, six feet tall, dirty, shoulderlength hair, full beard and mustache, wearing tank shirt, denim pants and blue denim jacket on his way to a specified bar while carrying a silver revolver with a black handle was specific; stop valid).

1980Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. [Footnote omitted.] Miranda required exclusion of any statements stemming from custodial interrogation unless the prosecution demonstrated compliance with its specific prophylactic safeguards. [7] If law enforcement officers fail to give the specified warnings before interrogation or fail to follow the Miranda guidelines during interrogation, the statement thus derived may be suppressed, even tho

1980Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. [Footnote omitted.] Miranda required exclusion of any statements stemming from custodial interrogation unless the prosecution demonstrated compliance with its specific prophylactic safeguards. [7] If law enforcement officers fail to give the specified warnings before interrogation or fail to follow the Miranda guidelines during interrogation, the statement thus derived may be suppressed, even tho

1980Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. [Footnote omitted.] Miranda required exclusion of any statements stemming from custodial interrogation unless the prosecution demonstrated compliance with its specific prophylactic safeguards. [7] If law enforcement officers fail to give the specified warnings before interrogation or fail to follow the Miranda guidelines during interrogation, the statement thus derived may be suppressed, even tho

1980Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. [Footnote omitted.] Miranda required exclusion of any statements stemming from custodial interrogation unless the prosecution demonstrated compliance with its specific prophylactic safeguards. [7] If law enforcement officers fail to give the specified warnings before interrogation or fail to follow the Miranda guidelines during interrogation, the statement thus derived may be suppressed, even tho

1976I must conclude that, had such granting of exemptions been transferred by Ch. 75-49, supra, then the 1976 Legislature, in amending s. 945.30, would have amended the repeated references to the commission in s. 945.30 to read "Department of Offender Rehabilitation." It is a fundamental, long-standing rule of statutory construction that it is to be presumed "that the Legislature, in enacting a statute, acted with full knowledge of existing statutes relating to the same subject." Tamiami Trail Tours v. Lee, 194 So. 305 , 306 (Fla. 1940).

1975When the Court in that case stated, "... all other factors being equal, tracks with records as best producers of revenue should prevail unless strong, compelling reasons otherwise dictate." ( 270 So.2d at 371 ), the Court clearly meant that the specified test should be employed as long as the State's paramount interests were thereby served.