12 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kelly E. Loudermilk v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Loudermilk v. State, 211 So.3d 356, 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). 2017See Loudermilk v. State, 211 So. 3d 356, 356 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). | 2 | 2 |
Adams v. Stategreen2 sentences2001See Adams v. State, 417 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (where order denying defendant's motion for new trial raising weight of evidence issue is worded in such a way as to indicate that trial court may have limited itself to sufficiency of evidence issue, reversal and remand are required). 1987See Adams v. State, 417 So.2d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (where order denying defendant's motion for new trial raising weight of evidence issue is worded in such a way as to indicate that trial court may have limited itself to sufficiency of evidence issue, reversal and remand are required). | 2 | 2 |
Simpson v. Owensgreen1 sentence2022Arizona’s Court of Appeals relied on Passino in deciding whether an evidentiary hearing was required before determining, as - 30 - part of the decision whether to admit a defendant to bail, that “the proof is evident or the presumption great that [the defendant] is guilty of the offense and the offense charged is a capital offense.” Simpson v. Owens, 85 P.3d 478, 481 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
King v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See King v. State, 183 So.3d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Ferebee v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Ferebee v. State, 967 So.2d 1071, 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing a denial of a motion for new trial because of the trial court's error in using the sufficiency of the evidence standard rather than the weight of the evidence standard). | 1 | 1 |
Geibel v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Geibel, 817 So.2d at 1045 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Spear v. State
green
1 sentence2019This court has reversed where “the trial court’s findings indicate that the court may have applied the sufficiency of the evidence standard instead of the weight of the evidence standard.” Spear v. State, 860 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
K.D. v. Department of Children & Families
green
1 sentence2018Motions for a new trial are assessed under the weight of the evidence standard, which “evaluates whether a greater amount of credible evidence supports an acquittal.” Velloso, 117 So. 3d at 905 ; see also Fla. R. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Re Doe
neutral
1 sentence2014See § 390.01114(4)(b)2„ Fla. Stat. (2013); In re Doe, 46 So.3d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding that the sufficiency of the evidence supported the minor’s request for waiver of parental notification); In re Doe, 973 So.2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding there was insufficient evidence to show that the minor was sufficiently mature to waive the notification requirement and to show that the waiver was in her best interests). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Doe
green
1 sentence2014See § 390.01114(4)(b)2„ Fla. Stat. (2013); In re Doe, 46 So.3d 1172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding that the sufficiency of the evidence supported the minor’s request for waiver of parental notification); In re Doe, 973 So.2d 548 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding there was insufficient evidence to show that the minor was sufficiently mature to waive the notification requirement and to show that the waiver was in her best interests). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Uprevert v. State
green
1 sentence2001"Therefore, where, as here, the record leaves no doubt that the trial court failed to exercise its unique discretion to assess a weight of the evidence claim, reversal and remand for appropriate findings are required." Uprevert, 507 So.2d at 164 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.