reversal error in Florida

11 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2006 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 (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
Robbins v. Stategreen fladistctapp · 1975 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006 1 sentence 2006Unlike the reversal of a criminal conviction for insufficient evidence, the reversal of a violation of probation conviction for insufficient evidence does not "bar a second revocation hearing based on the filing of a new affidavit alleging the same violations." Reeves v. State, 366 So.2d 1229 , 1230 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); see also Robbins v. State, 318 So.2d 472, 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).	1	1
McDonald v. Dept. of Banking and Financegreen fladistctapp · 1977 · cited in 1 Florida opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982 1 sentence 1982See, McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Holden v. Florida Department of Corrections, 400 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (10)

Case	Cited	Years
Hooper v. State neutral fladistctapp · 1984 2 sentences 1984However, I disagree with the analysis and per se rule adopted in Hicks v. State, 452 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), for all of the reasons recited in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Hooper v. State, 452 So.2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which I need not repeat here. 1984However, I disagree with the analysis and “per se” rule adopted in Hicks v. State, 452 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), for all of the reasons recited in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Hooper v. State, 452 So.2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which I need not repeat here.	5	1984–1984
Hicks v. State green fladistctapp · 1984 2 sentences 1984However, I disagree with the analysis and per se rule adopted in Hicks v. State, 452 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), for all of the reasons recited in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Hooper v. State, 452 So.2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which I need not repeat here. 1984However, I disagree with the analysis and “per se” rule adopted in Hicks v. State, 452 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), for all of the reasons recited in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Hooper v. State, 452 So.2d 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), which I need not repeat here.	5	1984–1984
Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co. green scotus · 1962 2 sentences 1995Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co., 370 U.S. 19 , 82 S.Ct. 1130 , 8 L.Ed.2d 305 (1962); State 1037 of Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U.S. 490 , 5 S.Ct. 278 , 28 L.Ed. 822 (1884); Maccia v. Tynes, 39 N.J.Super. 1 , 120 A.2d 263 (N.J.App.1956); Bredouw v. Jones, 431 P.2d 413 (Okl.1966). 1995Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co., 370 U.S. 19 , 82 S.Ct. 1130 , 8 L.Ed.2d 305 (1962); State 1037 of Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U.S. 490 , 5 S.Ct. 278 , 28 L.Ed. 822 (1884); Maccia v. Tynes, 39 N.J.Super. 1 , 120 A.2d 263 (N.J.App.1956); Bredouw v. Jones, 431 P.2d 413 (Okl.1966).	2	1978–1995
State Ex Rel. Markley v. Baldwin green scotus · 1884 2 sentences 1995Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co., 370 U.S. 19 , 82 S.Ct. 1130 , 8 L.Ed.2d 305 (1962); State 1037 of Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U.S. 490 , 5 S.Ct. 278 , 28 L.Ed. 822 (1884); Maccia v. Tynes, 39 N.J.Super. 1 , 120 A.2d 263 (N.J.App.1956); Bredouw v. Jones, 431 P.2d 413 (Okl.1966). 1995Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co., 370 U.S. 19 , 82 S.Ct. 1130 , 8 L.Ed.2d 305 (1962); State 1037 of Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U.S. 490 , 5 S.Ct. 278 , 28 L.Ed. 822 (1884); Maccia v. Tynes, 39 N.J.Super. 1 , 120 A.2d 263 (N.J.App.1956); Bredouw v. Jones, 431 P.2d 413 (Okl.1966).	2	1978–1995
MACCIA EX REL. MACCIA v. Tynes green njsuperctappdiv · 1956 2 sentences 1995Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co., 370 U.S. 19 , 82 S.Ct. 1130 , 8 L.Ed.2d 305 (1962); State 1037 of Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U.S. 490 , 5 S.Ct. 278 , 28 L.Ed. 822 (1884); Maccia v. Tynes, 39 N.J.Super. 1 , 120 A.2d 263 (N.J.App.1956); Bredouw v. Jones, 431 P.2d 413 (Okl.1966). 1995Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co., 370 U.S. 19 , 82 S.Ct. 1130 , 8 L.Ed.2d 305 (1962); State 1037 of Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U.S. 490 , 5 S.Ct. 278 , 28 L.Ed. 822 (1884); Maccia v. Tynes, 39 N.J.Super. 1 , 120 A.2d 263 (N.J.App.1956); Bredouw v. Jones, 431 P.2d 413 (Okl.1966).	2	1978–1995
Reeves v. State green fladistctapp · 1979 1 sentence 2006Unlike the reversal of a criminal conviction for insufficient evidence, the reversal of a violation of probation conviction for insufficient evidence does not "bar a second revocation hearing based on the filing of a new affidavit alleging the same violations." Reeves v. State, 366 So.2d 1229 , 1230 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); see also Robbins v. State, 318 So.2d 472, 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).	1	2006–2006
Bredouw v. Jones green okla · 1967 1 sentence 1995Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Winckler & Smith Citrus Products Co., 370 U.S. 19 , 82 S.Ct. 1130 , 8 L.Ed.2d 305 (1962); State *1037 of Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U.S. 490 , 5 S.Ct. 278 , 28 L.Ed. 822 (1884); Maccia v. Tynes, 39 N.J.Super. 1 , 120 A.2d 263 (N.J.App.1956); Bredouw v. Jones, 431 P.2d 413 (Okl.1966).	1	1995–1995
State v. Mosley neutral kan · 1884 1 sentence 1986Further, and even more significantly, although we held that the particular comment in the case at hand was reversible error, we specifically noted that comments on an accused's failure to testify were not per se reversible error: There may be some circumstances where reference to the fact may be made in such form as not to constitute reversible error, as in the case of State v. Mosley, 31 Kan. 355 , 2 Pac. 782 , but the remarks made in this case are not of that character.	1	1986–1986
Holden v. Florida Dept. of Corrections green fladistctapp · 1981 1 sentence 1982See, McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Holden v. Florida Department of Corrections, 400 So.2d 142 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).	1	1982–1982
National Labor Relations Board v. Universal Camera Corporation green ca2 · 1950 1 sentence 1977This we say, because we cannot find any middle ground between doing that and treating such a reversal as error, whenever it would be such, if done by a judge to a master in equity." 179 F.2d at 753 .	1	1977–1977

Statutes the citing opinions construe

FL § 948.01 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 224 (1911–2024) AL 36 (1845–2026) CA 20 (1903–2025) IL 20 (1884–2023) GA 15 (1904–2025) NY 15 (1877–2025) FL 11 (1977–2006) OH 10 (1926–2023) IN 10 (1887–2017) KY 9 (1902–2016) MO 8 (1884–2009) NJ 7 (1984–2024) ID 7 (1923–2021) MT 7 (1926–2010) AZ 7 (1949–2020) AR 6 (1985–2018) WA 6 (1926–2016) TN 6 (1926–2014) WI 5 (1877–2025) OK 5 (1913–1977) LA 4 (1996–2008) CT 4 (1958–2016) NC 3 (1967–2019) WY 3 (1906–2009) CO 3 (1952–2020) NM 3 (1928–2010) MN 3 (1916–1953) MS 3 (1990–1997) IA 3 (1946–1970) MA 3 (1981–2008) MI 2 (1904–1990) DC 2 (1990–1997)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check