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 1976–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Poore v. Stategreen2 sentences1996See Lippman v. State, 633 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1994); Larson v. State, 572 So.2d 1368 (Fla.1991); see also Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161, 164 (Fla.1988) (characterizing probation as one of the "five basic sentencing alternatives"). 1996See Lippman v. State, 633 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1994); Larson v. State, 572 So.2d 1368 (Fla.1991); see also Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161, 164 (Fla.1988) (characterizing probation as one of the “five basic sentencing alternatives”). | 2 | 2 |
Lippman v. Stategreen2 sentences1996See Lippman v. State, 633 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1994); Larson v. State, 572 So.2d 1368 (Fla.1991); see also Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161, 164 (Fla.1988) (characterizing probation as one of the "five basic sentencing alternatives"). 1996See Lippman v. State, 633 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1994); Larson v. State, 572 So.2d 1368 (Fla.1991); see also Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161, 164 (Fla.1988) (characterizing probation as one of the “five basic sentencing alternatives”). | 2 | 2 |
Hagan v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Sramek v. State, 946 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("[T]he fact that a defendant has already served his sentence [for indirect criminal contempt] does not render his appeal moot." (citing Hagan v. State, 853 So. 2d 595, 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003))). -3- DCA 1990) ("Greater procedural due process safeguards are accorded when proceedings are for indirect criminal contempt." (citing Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422, 425 (Fla. 1977))). | 1 | 1 |
Sramek v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Florida courts have held that failure to strictly follow the dictates of that rule is fundamental error." Sramek v. State, 946 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing cases); see also Bray v. Rimes, 574 So. 2d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 2d 2Thisappeal is not rendered moot by the fact that Mayo has already served his sentence and has otherwise complied with the court's order. 2018See Sramek v. State, 946 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("[T]he fact that a defendant has already served his sentence [for indirect criminal contempt] does not render his appeal moot." (citing Hagan v. State, 853 So. 2d 595, 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003))). -3- DCA 1990) ("Greater procedural due process safeguards are accorded when proceedings are for indirect criminal contempt." (citing Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422, 425 (Fla. 1977))). | 1 | 1 |
Bray v. Rimesgreen1 sentence2018Florida courts have held that failure to strictly follow the dictates of that rule is fundamental error." Sramek v. State, 946 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing cases); see also Bray v. Rimes, 574 So. 2d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 2d 2Thisappeal is not rendered moot by the fact that Mayo has already served his sentence and has otherwise complied with the court's order. | 1 | 1 |
Pugliese v. Pugliesegreen1 sentence2018See Sramek v. State, 946 So. 2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("[T]he fact that a defendant has already served his sentence [for indirect criminal contempt] does not render his appeal moot." (citing Hagan v. State, 853 So. 2d 595, 597 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003))). -3- DCA 1990) ("Greater procedural due process safeguards are accorded when proceedings are for indirect criminal contempt." (citing Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422, 425 (Fla. 1977))). | 1 | 1 |
Cone v. Gillsongreen1 sentence2007See Cone v. Gillson, 861 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Mix v. State, 827 So.2d 397, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363, 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Hunt v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Cone v. Gillson, 861 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Mix v. State, 827 So.2d 397, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363, 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Shields v. Paving Stone Co., Inc.green1 sentence2007See, e.g., Shields v. Paving Stone Co., 796 So.2d 1267, 1268-69 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Mix v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Cone v. Gillson, 861 So.2d 1210 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Mix v. State, 827 So.2d 397, 399 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363, 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Gordon v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.green1 sentence1997Gordon v. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., 641 So.2d 515, 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). | 1 | 1 |
Sloan v. Stategreen1 sentence1988Id. at 901 ; see also Sloan v. State, 472 So.2d 488, 490 (Fla.2d DCA 1985), approved in part, quashed in part, 491 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Sloan v. Stategreen1 sentence1988Id. at 901 ; see also Sloan v. State, 472 So.2d 488, 490 (Fla.2d DCA 1985), approved in part, quashed in part, 491 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1986). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence1985See Cobb v. State, 424 So.2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Jones v. State, 384 So.2d 736, 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). | 1 | 1 |
Cobb v. Stategreen1 sentence1985See Cobb v. State, 424 So.2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Jones v. State, 384 So.2d 736, 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Larson v. State
green
2 sentences1996See Lippman v. State, 633 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1994); Larson v. State, 572 So.2d 1368 (Fla.1991); see also Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161, 164 (Fla.1988) (characterizing probation as one of the "five basic sentencing alternatives"). 1996See Lippman v. State, 633 So.2d 1061 (Fla.1994); Larson v. State, 572 So.2d 1368 (Fla.1991); see also Poore v. State, 531 So.2d 161, 164 (Fla.1988) (characterizing probation as one of the “five basic sentencing alternatives”). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Soler v. Duluc
green
1 sentence2018New Day Miami, 225 So. 3d at 376-77 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2011The presence of counsel during a custodial interrogation is needed because it is "the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self-incrimination]." Id. 2011The presence of counsel during a custodial interrogation is needed because it is “the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self-incrimination].” Id. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Vanover v. State
green
2 sentences1988The supreme court held that departure on this ground was not an abuse of discretion because the trial court's finding that the defendant committed two separate acts of sexual battery has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and is within the dictates of rule 3.701(b)(3), which commands that "[t]he penalty imposed should be commensurate with the severity of the convicted offense and the circumstances surrounding the offense." Notwithstanding Lerma , Ponder argues that the trial court could not depart on the ground that he committed two distinct armed robberies because the supreme court, in Van 1988Id. at 901 ; see also Sloan v. State, 472 So.2d 488, 490 (Fla.2d DCA 1985), approved in part, quashed in part, 491 So.2d 276 (Fla. 1986). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Williamson v. Bush & LaFoe
neutral
1 sentence1976Moreover, where the Act is susceptible of disparate interpretations, the court will adopt that construction which is most favorable to the employee." Petitioners assert that Williamson, supra, effectively departed from the dictates of the doctrine described above. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.