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.
11 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2024 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Smalls v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See Smalls v. State, 18 So.3d 606, 608 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Rutherford v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See also Rutherford, 926 So.2d at 1115-17 (denying the substantially same records request because the defendant failed to demonstrate that he had previously requested records concerning lethal injection in Florida, and reasoning that rule 3.852(h)(3) "is designed to allow an update of records previously requested"). | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See also, Lee v. State, 677 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Hills v. State, 671 So.2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Espinoza v. State, 679 So.2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen2 sentences1996Moreover, the State contends, Haines' affidavit does not meet the test set forth in Jones v. State, 591 So.2d 911, 915 (Fla.1991), because it probably would not "produce an acquittal on retrial." We find that the trial court improperly denied this claim without an evidentiary hearing. 1996Haines' recanted testimony qualifies as newly discovered evidence because "the asserted facts `must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that defendant or his counsel could not have known them by the use of diligence.'" Id. at 916 (quoting Hallman v. State, 371 So.2d 482, 485 (Fla.1979)). | 1 | 1 |
Hallman v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Haines' recanted testimony qualifies as newly discovered evidence because "the asserted facts `must have been unknown by the trial court, by the party, or by counsel at the time of trial, and it must appear that defendant or his counsel could not have known them by the use of diligence.'" Id. at 916 (quoting Hallman v. State, 371 So.2d 482, 485 (Fla.1979)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Freeman v. State
green
1 sentence2024Freeman, 761 So. 2d at 1064–65 (citations omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Simpson v. State
green
1 sentence2024Simpson v. State, 100 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Borders v. State, 309 So. 3d 314 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Correll v. State
green
1 sentence2018We rejected a similar claim in Correll v. State , 184 So.3d 478 (Fla. 2015), where the inmate had been on death row for over twenty-nine years: [T]his Court has repeatedly rejected such challenges. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Walton v. State
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 1005 . c.Newly Discovered Evidence Reed claims that the Hazen and Kor-mondy affidavits constitute newly discovered evidence and that the circuit court erred when it denied this claim without an evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Johnston v. State
green
1 sentence2010This Court recently rejected an identical claim in Johnston v. State, 27 So.3d 11 (Fla.2010): Johnston contends that his original clemency hearing was inadequate to protect his rights because it was conducted before his full life history and mental illness history were developed. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Booker v. State
green
1 sentence2007Booker has already asserted on direct appeal that "to execute him after he has already spent over two decades on death row would constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." Booker, 773 So.2d at 1096 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Johnson v. Butterworth
green
1 sentence1998We first note our recent holding in Johnson v. Butterworth, 713 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1998), in which we stated that attorney's notes and other such preliminary documents are not public records and are never subject to public records disclosure. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Hills v. State
neutral
1 sentence1997See also, Lee v. State, 677 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Hills v. State, 671 So.2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Espinoza v. State, 679 So.2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Espinoza v. State
neutral
1 sentence1997See also, Lee v. State, 677 So.2d 312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Hills v. State, 671 So.2d 223 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Espinoza v. State, 679 So.2d 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.