pleading requirements rule (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

pleading requirements rule in Florida

11 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2010 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Baker v. Stategreen
fladistctapp · 1998 · cited in 3 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2006–2009
2 sentences

2009Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167, 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998).

2006P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). [5] See also Phillips v. State, 798 So.2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (same); Acquaotta v. State, 791 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (same). [6] Citing to Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), the concurring opinion asserts that "[a] mere conclusory allegation that the answer lies somewhere in the record is insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of the rule." I note that the court in Baker presumed that this was a correct statement of the law.

23
Bryant v. Stategreen
fla · 2005 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2005–2009
2 sentences

2009See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007) (extending the holding of Bryant v. State, 901 So.2d 810 (Fla.2005), to all initial postconviction motions).

2005Id. at 816 .

22
Spera v. Stategreen
fla · 2007 · cited in 2 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
2 sentences

2009See Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754, 761 (Fla.2007) (extending the holding of Bryant v. State, 901 So.2d 810 (Fla.2005), to all initial postconviction motions).

2009In accordance with Spera v. State, 971 So.2d 754 (Fla.2007), we reverse the trial court’s summary denial of relief and remand for it to grant appellant leave to amend his motion to comport with the pleading requirements for a claim of newly discovered evidence.

12
Williams v. Stategreen
fladistctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010A mere conclusory allegation that the answer lies in the record is insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of the rule.”); Williams v. State, 4 So.3d 728, 729 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (“Although a jail credit claim may be raised by use of a 3.800(a) motion to correct sentence, the movant must demonstrate that the record shows an entitlement to additional jail credit, as well as a sentence that fails to grant such credit.”).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
Strickland v. Washington green
scotus · 1984
2 sentences

2007Those requirements were established years ago in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

2007Those requirements were established years ago in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).

12007–2007
Keevis v. State green
fladistctapp · 2005
1 sentence

2007On the other hand, in Keevis the Second District acknowledged that "the facts surrounding the holding in Bryant may be read to indicate that when any postconviction motion fails to meet the pleading requirements of the rule itself, the proper procedure is to strike the motion with leave to amend." Keevis, 908 So.2d at 553 .

12007–2007
Knighten v. State green
fladistctapp · 2002
1 sentence

2006Id. at 250 .

12006–2006
Acquaotta v. State green
fladistctapp · 2001
1 sentence

2006P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). [5] See also Phillips v. State, 798 So.2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (same); Acquaotta v. State, 791 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (same). [6] Citing to Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), the concurring opinion asserts that "[a] mere conclusory allegation that the answer lies somewhere in the record is insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of the rule." I note that the court in Baker presumed that this was a correct statement of the law.

12006–2006
Bell v. State green
fladistctapp · 2001
1 sentence

2006P. 9.141(b)(2)(D). [5] See also Phillips v. State, 798 So.2d 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (same); Acquaotta v. State, 791 So.2d 1251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (same). [6] Citing to Baker v. State, 714 So.2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998), the concurring opinion asserts that "[a] mere conclusory allegation that the answer lies somewhere in the record is insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirements of the rule." I note that the court in Baker presumed that this was a correct statement of the law.

12006–2006
Heggs v. State green
fla · 2000
1 sentence

2001The circuit court, noting that the motion sought relief under Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2000), treated the motion as one filed pursuant to rule 3.800(a) and denied it.

12001–2001
Wood v. State green
fla · 1999
1 sentence

2001Hogan's motion was filed within the window created by Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), and raises claims that are traditionally cognizable in error coram nobis.

12001–2001

Where else courts name it

FL 11 (2001–2010) MA 4 (1985–2011) PA 2 (2025–2025) IL 2 (2016–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check