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 1957–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Townsendgreen2 sentences2016See § 90.803(23)(a)(l); Townsend, 635 So.2d at 957-58 . 2015Forachildhearsaystatementto.be admissible at trial, the court must hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine if the statement meets two reliability conditions: “(1) the source of the information through which the statement was reported must indicate trustworthiness; and (2) the time, content, and circumstances of the statement must reflect that the statement provides sufficient safeguards of reliability.” State v. Townsend, 635 So.2d 949, 954 (Fla.1994), Suggested factors for courts to consider in making this determination may be found in both statutory and case - law. | 1 | 2 |
Stewart v. Bee-Dee Neon & Signs, Inc.green1 sentence2026As an alternative basis for its ruling, even disregarding Doran’s averments, the court found “there [was still] sufficient evidence to ensure compliance with Rule 4–1.12.” This appeal followed. 4 II. “[A] trial court’s decision on a motion for disqualification is reviewed for abuse of discretion. . . .” Stewart v. Bee-Dee Neon & Signs, Inc., 751 So. 2d 196, 205 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Van Horn v. Stategreen1 sentence1986We decline the defendant’s invitation to invoke a suggested exception to this rule of stare decisis, see Van Horn v. State, 485 So.2d 1380, 1381 (1986) (Schwartz, C.J., dissenting), since the United States Supreme Court has not, as yet, definitively held that the failure to notify a defendant of his right to appointed counsel renders his subsequent confession inadmissible. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hazuri v. State
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
McCarthy v. Bronson
green
2 sentences2008The Supreme Court maintained that all prisoner petitions were to be referred to magistrates because "litigation would otherwise arise in trying to identify *665 the precise contour of a petitioner's suggested exception for single episode cases." McCarthy, 500 U.S. at 143 , 111 S.Ct. 1737 . 2008The Supreme Court maintained that all prisoner petitions were to be referred to magistrates because "litigation would otherwise arise in trying to identify *665 the precise contour of a petitioner's suggested exception for single episode cases." McCarthy, 500 U.S. at 143 , 111 S.Ct. 1737 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Preiser v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences2008In reaching this result, the McCarthy Court relied heavily on its previous decision in Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 , 93 S.Ct. 1827 , 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). 2008In reaching this result, the McCarthy Court relied heavily on its previous decision in Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 , 93 S.Ct. 1827 , 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Department of Transportation v. CNL Income Fund VIII, Ltd.
neutral
1 sentence2005In CNL Income Fund, the court suggested that a test for nonmonetary benefits should be whether the "work of the owner's attorney in obtaining the [nonmonetary benefit] relates directly to the issues in the eminent domain case." Id. at 149 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Register v. State
green
1 sentence2002For example, in Register v. State, 718 So.2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), the court suggested that a defense request to reopen its case was not timely where it was made before closing arguments but after the state had called its single rebuttal witness. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Donaldson v. State
green
1 sentence2002In the only remaining scenario, the law seems to be clear that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to reopen the defense case-in-chief where a defendant, after explicitly refusing to testify, subsequently expresses a desire to do so after closing arguments have been made and both sides have presented their respective theories of the case. 2 See Donaldson, 722 So.2d at 182 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Seven-Up Bottling Company v. George Const. Corp.
green
1 sentence2001Seven-Up Bottling Co., 153 So.2d 11 ; Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So.2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum
green
1 sentence2001Seven-Up Bottling Co., 153 So.2d 11 ; Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So.2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Goins v. State
green
2 sentences1997The court suggested that a rule be promulgated that would allow a defendant to move to withdraw his or her plea on the ground that the sentence imposed by the judge is greater than that set forth in the *387 plea agreement and would "further provide that the failure to file such a motion would preclude the defendant from raising the issue on appeal." Id. 1997In a footnote the court suggested that "this could be accomplished by incorporating the concept into the proposed amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g) and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 now pending before this court." Id. at 32 n. 3. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Clark v. State
green
1 sentence1981State v. Cumbie, 380 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 1980); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Cumbie
green
1 sentence1981State v. Cumbie, 380 So.2d 1031 (Fla. 1980); Clark v. State, 363 So.2d 331 (Fla. 1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Sencer v. Carl's Market
green
1 sentence1957In Sencer v. Carl's Markets, Inc., Fla. 1950, 45 So.2d 671 , we held that a retailer selling canned food products to the public may be held liable on an implied warranty for injuries sustained by a purchaser because of unwholesome substances in the product. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.