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 1 courts 1997–2010 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Pagan v. Stategreen2 sentences2010The supreme court articulated our standard of review in Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla.2002): In reviewing a motion for judgment of acquittal, a de novo standard of review applies. 2010The supreme court articulated our standard of review in Pagan v. State, 830 So.2d 792 (Fla.2002): Generally, an appellate court will not reverse a conviction which is supported by competent, substantial evidence. | 1 | 4 |
Sirmons v. Stategreen1 sentence2009In Sirmons v. State, 634 So.2d 153, 154 (Fla.1994), the supreme court articulated the exception as pertaining to offenses that “are merely degree variants of the [same] core offense.” Later, the court defined the subsection (2) exception as applying to “crimes intended] to punish the same primary evil.” See State v. Paul, 934 So.2d 1167, 1175 (Fla.2006); see also State v. Florida, 894 So.2d 941, 948-49 (Fla.2005). 5 In considering the issue of the violation of Smith’s double jeopardy rights on direct appeal, this court would have had to determine whether the consecutive sentences imposed by th | 1 | 1 |
State v. Paulgreen1 sentence2009In Sirmons v. State, 634 So.2d 153, 154 (Fla.1994), the supreme court articulated the exception as pertaining to offenses that “are merely degree variants of the [same] core offense.” Later, the court defined the subsection (2) exception as applying to “crimes intended] to punish the same primary evil.” See State v. Paul, 934 So.2d 1167, 1175 (Fla.2006); see also State v. Florida, 894 So.2d 941, 948-49 (Fla.2005). 5 In considering the issue of the violation of Smith’s double jeopardy rights on direct appeal, this court would have had to determine whether the consecutive sentences imposed by th | 1 | 1 |
State v. Floridagreen1 sentence2009In Sirmons v. State, 634 So.2d 153, 154 (Fla.1994), the supreme court articulated the exception as pertaining to offenses that “are merely degree variants of the [same] core offense.” Later, the court defined the subsection (2) exception as applying to “crimes intended] to punish the same primary evil.” See State v. Paul, 934 So.2d 1167, 1175 (Fla.2006); see also State v. Florida, 894 So.2d 941, 948-49 (Fla.2005). 5 In considering the issue of the violation of Smith’s double jeopardy rights on direct appeal, this court would have had to determine whether the consecutive sentences imposed by th | 1 | 1 |
Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc.green1 sentence1997The Division CV-B circuit court judge made no finding of "good cause" for the unsealing, nor did the judge articulate a rationale for the ruling. [1] In Barron v. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So.2d 113, 118 (Fla. 1988), the supreme court articulated the standard or test for determining an initial closure request in civil proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Del Duca v. Anthony
green
2 sentences2002Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(e) requires that plaintiffs counsel ensure that some record activity is accomplished within a twelve-month period to avoid dismissal of the action. 1 In Del Duca v. Anthony, 587 So.2d 1306 (Fla.1991), the supreme court articulated the standard for determining whether a case is subject to dismissal for lack of prosecution under the rule: First, the defendant must show there has been no record activity for the year preceding the motion. 1999In Del Duca v. Anthony, 587 So.2d 1306 (Fla.1991), the supreme court articulated the standard for determining whether a case is subject to dismissal for lack of prosecution under the rule: First, the defendant must show there has been no record activity for the year preceding the motion. | 2 | 1999–2002 |
Hill v. California
green
2 sentences2006If it were, the case would be controlled by Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 , 91 S.Ct. 1106 , 28 L.Ed.2d 484 (1971), in which the Supreme Court articulated the standard for evaluating an arrest based on mistaken identity. 2006If it were, the case would be controlled by Hill v. California, 401 U.S. 797 , 91 S.Ct. 1106 , 28 L.Ed.2d 484 (1971), in which the Supreme Court articulated the standard for evaluating an arrest based on mistaken identity. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Columbia Casualty Co. v. Zimmerman
green
1 sentence2003Co. v. Zimmerman, 62 So.2d 338 (Fla.1952). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Rosen v. Rosen
green
1 sentence1997Presuming that the alimony payments continued at the same rate, and further presuming no dramatic shifts in the stock market, the former wife’s projected gross income for 1995 would be approximately $144,000. 6 In Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1997), the Supreme Court articulated the factors to be considered in awarding attorneys’ fees in modification proceedings: [The] financial resources of the parties are the primary factor to be considered. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.