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 3 courts 1974–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gore v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Gore v. State, 599 So. 2d 978, 985 (Fla. 1992) (“While a defendant does have the right to be present when a witness testifies against him, no rule of criminal procedure, statute, or judicial decision has ever expanded this right into a right to be present at the deposition of a defense witness, and we decline to do so now.”) Petitioner has not raised the compulsory process clause in her petition, and no judicial decision has applied it to a motion to perpetuate testimony. | 1 | 1 |
Hutchings v. Lilesgreen1 sentence2024See Hutchings v. Liles, 86 So. 3d 1279, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“The trial court has ‘broad judicial discretion as to the source, nature, and sufficiency of the facts which [it] may consider.’ Proof which raises a reasonable presumption is sufficient to provide the basis for admission of a deposition under rule 1.330.”) (quoting Colonnades, Inc. v. Vance Baldwin, Inc., 318 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)); Iden v. Kasden, 609 So. 2d 54, 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“[W]hile custom or usage may be employed in explanation and qualification of terms of a contract that would otherwise be ambiguous | 1 | 1 |
Iden v. Kasdengreen1 sentence2024See Hutchings v. Liles, 86 So. 3d 1279, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“The trial court has ‘broad judicial discretion as to the source, nature, and sufficiency of the facts which [it] may consider.’ Proof which raises a reasonable presumption is sufficient to provide the basis for admission of a deposition under rule 1.330.”) (quoting Colonnades, Inc. v. Vance Baldwin, Inc., 318 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)); Iden v. Kasden, 609 So. 2d 54, 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“[W]hile custom or usage may be employed in explanation and qualification of terms of a contract that would otherwise be ambiguous | 1 | 1 |
Colonnades, Inc. v. Vance Baldwin, Inc.green1 sentence2024See Hutchings v. Liles, 86 So. 3d 1279, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“The trial court has ‘broad judicial discretion as to the source, nature, and sufficiency of the facts which [it] may consider.’ Proof which raises a reasonable presumption is sufficient to provide the basis for admission of a deposition under rule 1.330.”) (quoting Colonnades, Inc. v. Vance Baldwin, Inc., 318 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)); Iden v. Kasden, 609 So. 2d 54, 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“[W]hile custom or usage may be employed in explanation and qualification of terms of a contract that would otherwise be ambiguous | 1 | 1 |
Above All Drywall v. Shearergreen1 sentence2003Above All Drywall v. Shearer, 651 So.2d 195, 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(ruling that because the employer/servicing agent made no objection to, or moved to strike the expert testimony for lack of competency, the error was not properly preserved for appellate review). .The 1997 version of section 121.23(2)(a) is different in some respects from the 1991 version interpreted in Nichols . | 1 | 1 |
Francis v. Statered1 sentence1992We also reject Gore's argument that this deposition falls under the defendant's right to be present "at the stages of his trial where fundamental fairness might be thwarted by his absence." Francis v. State, 413 So.2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 1982). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Tannergreen1 sentence1987See Brown v. Tanner, 164 So.2d 848 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Winter Park Imports, Inc. v. JM Family Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019While I agree that such a determination is within the trial court's discretion, Winter Park Imports , 77 So. 3d at 229 , the order, which specifically addresses most of the exceptions to the special master's report, does not reflect that the trial court considered the claim for preparation time. 2019While I agree that such a determination is within the trial court's discretion, Winter Park Imports , 77 So. 3d at 229 , the order, which specifically addresses most of the exceptions to the special master's report, does not reflect that the trial court considered the claim for preparation time. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Dickson v. Feiner's Organization, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Dickson v. Feiner’s Org., Inc., 155 So.2d 703 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Bonamy
green
1 sentence1988State v. Rodriguez, 483 So.2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Bonamy, 409 So.2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); State v. Roig, 305 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence1988State v. Rodriguez, 483 So.2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Bonamy, 409 So.2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); State v. Roig, 305 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Roig
green
1 sentence1988State v. Rodriguez, 483 So.2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); State v. Bonamy, 409 So.2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); State v. Roig, 305 So.2d 836 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Chapman v. State
green
1 sentence1977The Second District Court of Appeal, in Chapman v. State, 302 So.2d 136 (Fla.2d DCA, 1974), in reversing a rape conviction based inter alia on incriminating deposition testimony of a telephone company employee who had moved to New York, opined: "The defendant, who was in custody at the time, was neither notified nor brought to the taking of the deposition as the rule unmistakably requires..." ..... | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Barber v. Page
red
2 sentences1974Moreover, although it is not argued on appeal, nothing in the record indicates a good faith effort on the part of the prosecutor to secure the witness' presence at trial; the mere absence of the witness from the state does not mean he is "unavailable" to testify. cf. Barber v. Page, 1968, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 . 1974Moreover, although it is not argued on appeal, nothing in the record indicates a good faith effort on the part of the prosecutor to secure the witness' presence at trial; the mere absence of the witness from the state does not mean he is "unavailable" to testify. cf. Barber v. Page, 1968, 390 U.S. 719 , 88 S.Ct. 1318 , 20 L.Ed.2d 255 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.