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 1976–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Askari Abdullah Muhammad f/k/a Thomas Knight v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2026Upon careful review, we find no error, see Muhammad v. State, 132 So. 3d 176, 200 (Fla. 2013), and conclude that King is not entitled to relief on this claim. 1 King’s public records demand was made under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.852(h) and (i), which permit counsel for a defendant subject to a death warrant to request the production of certain public records. 2026Upon careful review, we find no error, see Muhammad v. State, 132 So. 3d 176, 200 (Fla. 2013), and conclude that King is not entitled to relief on this claim. 1 King’s public records demand was made under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.852(h) and (i), which permit counsel for a defendant subject to a death warrant to request the production of certain public records. | 1 | 1 |
Jordan v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2019"In limited cases," the Burch court explained, "due process permits a period of involuntary commitment prior to a hearing as long as a hearing is held shortly after the initial detention." Id.7 See also Jordan by Jordan v. Jackson, 15 F.3d 333, 349 (4th Cir. 1994) ("Promptness is the touchstone of the Fourteenth Amendment analysis into the timeliness of post-deprivation review, as well as the Fourth Amendment inquiry into the constitutionality of delay in an independent probable cause determination."). 2019"In limited cases," the Burch court explained, "due process permits a period of involuntary commitment prior to a hearing as long as a hearing is held shortly after the initial detention." Id.7 See also Jordan by Jordan v. Jackson, 15 F.3d 333, 349 (4th Cir. 1994) ("Promptness is the touchstone of the Fourteenth Amendment analysis into the timeliness of post-deprivation review, as well as the Fourth Amendment inquiry into the constitutionality of delay in an independent probable cause determination."). | 1 | 1 |
Goebert v. Lee Countygreen2 sentences2012Alternatively, appellant claims that BCFR personnel violated the decedent’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights through “deliberate indifference.” The court in Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1306-07 (11th Cir.2009), held that to prevail on a Fourteenth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a plaintiff must show: “(1) a serious medical need; (2) the defendants’ deliberate indifference to that need; and (3) causation between that indifference and the plaintiffs injury.” (citing Goebert v. Lee Cnty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir.2007)). 2012Alternatively, appellant claims that BCFR personnel violated the decedent’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights through “deliberate indifference.” The court in Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1306-07 (11th Cir.2009), held that to prevail on a Fourteenth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a plaintiff must show: “(1) a serious medical need; (2) the defendants’ deliberate indifference to that need; and (3) causation between that indifference and the plaintiffs injury.” (citing Goebert v. Lee Cnty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir.2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Mann v. Taser International, Inc.green2 sentences2012Alternatively, appellant claims that BCFR personnel violated the decedent’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights through “deliberate indifference.” The court in Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1306-07 (11th Cir.2009), held that to prevail on a Fourteenth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a plaintiff must show: “(1) a serious medical need; (2) the defendants’ deliberate indifference to that need; and (3) causation between that indifference and the plaintiffs injury.” (citing Goebert v. Lee Cnty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir.2007)). 2012Alternatively, appellant claims that BCFR personnel violated the decedent’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights through “deliberate indifference.” The court in Mann v. Taser Int’l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1306-07 (11th Cir.2009), held that to prevail on a Fourteenth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, a plaintiff must show: “(1) a serious medical need; (2) the defendants’ deliberate indifference to that need; and (3) causation between that indifference and the plaintiffs injury.” (citing Goebert v. Lee Cnty., 510 F.3d 1312, 1326 (11th Cir.2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Duest v. Duggergreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., Duest v. Dugger, 555 So.2d 849, 852 (Fla.1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alden v. Maine
green
2 sentences2002The same Fourteenth Amendment analysis *145 applies; that analysis "does not foreclose a State from asserting immunity to claims arising under federal law merely because that law derives not from the State but from the national power." Id. at 732 , 119 S.Ct. 2240 . 2002The same Fourteenth Amendment analysis *145 applies; that analysis "does not foreclose a State from asserting immunity to claims arising under federal law merely because that law derives not from the State but from the national power." Id. at 732 , 119 S.Ct. 2240 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Jenkins v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1998Jenkins, 447 *766 U.S. at 239-40, 100 S.Ct. 2124 , 65 L.Ed.2d 86 . 1998Jenkins, 447 *766 U.S. at 239-40, 100 S.Ct. 2124 , 65 L.Ed.2d 86 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State ex rel. Hadlock v. Corrigan
green
1 sentence1993Mayrides v. Whitehall, 62 Ohio App.3d 225 , 575 N.E.2d 224 (1990) (indigent inmate not entitled to obtain public records free of charge), aff'd, 62 Ohio St.3d 203 , 580 N.E.2d 1089 (Ohio 1991). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State ex rel. Mayrides v. City of Whitehall
green
1 sentence1993Mayrides v. Whitehall, 62 Ohio App.3d 225 , 575 N.E.2d 224 (1990) (indigent inmate not entitled to obtain public records free of charge), aff'd, 62 Ohio St.3d 203 , 580 N.E.2d 1089 (Ohio 1991). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Rizzo v. Tyler
green
1 sentence1993Cir.) (no Fourteenth Amendment violation by Postal Service's refusal to waive copying fee for indigent inmate), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 2338 , 85 L.Ed.2d 854 (1985); Rizzo v. Tyler, 438 F. Supp. 895 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (Department of Justice could properly refuse to furnish copies of its files without cost to indigent inmate under the Freedom of Information Act); State, ex rel. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Stewart v. Cabana
green
1 sentence1993Cir.) (no Fourteenth Amendment violation by Postal Service's refusal to waive copying fee for indigent inmate), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 2338 , 85 L.Ed.2d 854 (1985); Rizzo v. Tyler, 438 F. Supp. 895 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (Department of Justice could properly refuse to furnish copies of its files without cost to indigent inmate under the Freedom of Information Act); State, ex rel. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Abbott v. Melson
green
1 sentence1993Cir.) (no Fourteenth Amendment violation by Postal Service's refusal to waive copying fee for indigent inmate), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 2338 , 85 L.Ed.2d 854 (1985); Rizzo v. Tyler, 438 F. Supp. 895 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (Department of Justice could properly refuse to furnish copies of its files without cost to indigent inmate under the Freedom of Information Act); State, ex rel. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Ely v. United States Postal Service
green
1 sentence1993Cir.) (no Fourteenth Amendment violation by Postal Service's refusal to waive copying fee for indigent inmate), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1106 , 105 S.Ct. 2338 , 85 L.Ed.2d 854 (1985); Rizzo v. Tyler, 438 F. Supp. 895 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (Department of Justice could properly refuse to furnish copies of its files without cost to indigent inmate under the Freedom of Information Act); State, ex rel. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State Ex Rel. Mayrides v. City of Whitehall
neutral
2 sentences1993Mayrides v. Whitehall, 62 Ohio App.3d 225 , 575 N.E.2d 224 (1990) (indigent inmate not entitled to obtain public records free of charge), aff'd, 62 Ohio St.3d 203 , 580 N.E.2d 1089 (Ohio 1991). 1993Mayrides v. Whitehall, 62 Ohio App.3d 225 , 575 N.E.2d 224 (1990) (indigent inmate not entitled to obtain public records free of charge), aff'd, 62 Ohio St.3d 203 , 580 N.E.2d 1089 (Ohio 1991). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Alford v. United States
green
2 sentences1990The Court, relying on its earlier decision in Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 , 51 S.Ct. 218 , 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931), reversed the conviction, stating: [W]hen the credibility of a witness is in issue, the very starting point in “exposing falsehood and bringing out the truth” through cross-examinatibn must necessarily be to ask the witness who he is and where he lives. 1990The Court, relying on its earlier decision in Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 , 51 S.Ct. 218 , 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931), reversed the conviction, stating: [W]hen the credibility of a witness is in issue, the very starting point in “exposing falsehood and bringing out the truth” through cross-examinatibn must necessarily be to ask the witness who he is and where he lives. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Smith v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1990In Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129 , 88 S.Ct. 748 , 19 L.Ed.2d 956 (1968), the United States Supreme Court applied a Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment analysis to a situation where a prosecution witness was allowed by the trial court to use a false name and to withhold his residence address. 1990In Smith v. Illinois, 390 U.S. 129 , 88 S.Ct. 748 , 19 L.Ed.2d 956 (1968), the United States Supreme Court applied a Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment analysis to a situation where a prosecution witness was allowed by the trial court to use a false name and to withhold his residence address. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
green
2 sentences1982Cf. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 [ 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ]. 1982Cf. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 [ 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ]. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Cannon v. United States
green
2 sentences1982Cf. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 [ 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ]. 1982Cf. Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 [ 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 ]. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Swain v. Alabama
red
2 sentences1976But when the prosecutor in a county, in case after case, whatever the circumstances, whatever the crime and whoever the defendant or the victim may be, is responsible for the removal of Negroes who have been selected as qualified jurors by the jury commissioners and who have survived challenges for cause, with the result that no Negroes ever serve on petit juries, the Fourteenth Amendment claim takes on added significance." 380 U.S. at 223 , 85 S.Ct. at 837 . 1976But when the prosecutor in a county, in case after case, whatever the circumstances, whatever the crime and whoever the defendant or the victim may be, is responsible for the removal of Negroes who have been selected as qualified jurors by the jury commissioners and who have survived challenges for cause, with the result that no Negroes ever serve on petit juries, the Fourteenth Amendment claim takes on added significance." 380 U.S. at 223 , 85 S.Ct. at 837 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Montanye v. Haymes
green
1 sentence1976Montanye v. Haymes, opinion filed June 25, 1976, - U.S. -, 96 S.Ct. 2543 , 49 L.Ed.2d-, reversed a circuit court judgment that had held the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required a hearing before a prisoner could be transferred from one New York state prison to another for disciplinary reasons. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.