11 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Callawaygreen2 sentences1998To meet the third prong of the Witt test, a decision must be a change of "fundamental significance." We stated in Callaway that there are two categories of cases that are changes of fundamental significance: (a) those opinions that "place beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or impose certain penalties" and (b) those opinions that are `of sufficient magnitude to necessitate retroactive application' under the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 [ 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 ] (1967)." Callaway, 658 So.2d 983, 986-87 (Fla.1995) (quoting Witt, 3 1997For all these reasons, we conclude that the King decision is constitutional in nature. [7] FUNDAMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE OF KING Elaborating on the third prong of Witt , our supreme court explained in Callaway that decisions having fundamental significance fall into two broad categories: (a) those decisions that "place beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or impose certain penalties" and (b) those that are "of sufficient magnitude to necessitate retroactive application under the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (19 | 2 | 3 |
Stovall v. Dennogreen2 sentences2024In its statement of the threefold test that we subsequently adopted in Witt, Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297 (1967), refers to the second part of that test as “the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards.” The reliance interests relevant under Witt count against retroactivity. 2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c | 1 | 8 |
Witt v. Stategreen2 sentences2015Because we have concluded that Miller constitutes a change of law “which placets] beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or impose certain penalties,” Witt, 387 So.2d at 929 , we need not determine whether the rule articulated in Miller satisfies the threefold analysis under Stovall and Linkletter. 1998To meet the third prong of the Witt test, a decision must be a change of "fundamental significance." We stated in Callaway that there are two categories of cases that are changes of fundamental significance: (a) those opinions that "place beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or impose certain penalties" and (b) those opinions that are `of sufficient magnitude to necessitate retroactive application' under the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 [ 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 ] (1967)." Callaway, 658 So.2d 983, 986-87 (Fla.1995) (quoting Witt, 3 | 1 | 4 |
Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hallgreen1 sentence2017To impose spoliation sanctions under the threefold inquiry, "the court must determine whether; (1) 'the evidence existed at one time,1 (2) hhe spoliator had a duty to preserve the evidence, and’ . (3) ‘the evidence was crucial to an opposing party[’s] being able to prove its prima facie case or a defense.’ ” Osmulski, 93 So.3d at 392 (alteration in original) (quoting Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So.2d 777, 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
Osmulski v. Oldsmar Fine Wine, Inc.green1 sentence2017To impose spoliation sanctions under the threefold inquiry, "the court must determine whether; (1) 'the evidence existed at one time,1 (2) hhe spoliator had a duty to preserve the evidence, and’ . (3) ‘the evidence was crucial to an opposing party[’s] being able to prove its prima facie case or a defense.’ ” Osmulski, 93 So.3d at 392 (alteration in original) (quoting Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So.2d 777, 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
Ring v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c 2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c | 1 | 1 |
Teffeteller v. Duggergreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Teffeteller v. Dugger, 734 So.2d 1009, 1025 (Fla.1999) ("Further, Hitchcock constituted a substantial change in the law so that such error could be raised for the first time in a postconviction proceeding even if otherwise procedurally barred.") [54] See Ring, 122 S.Ct. at 2440-43 . [55] This Court on direct appeal summarized the aggravating circumstances that had been established as follows: As aggravating circumstances, the trial judge found that appellant had previously been convicted of a crime involving the threat of violence; that the crime was committed during the commission | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Linkletter v. Walker
red
2 sentences2001See id. at 871. [2] Decisions which have fundamental significance generally fall into two broad categories: (1) those decisions which place beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or impose certain penalties; and (2) decisions which are of sufficient magnitude to necessitate retroactive application under the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), and Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965). 2001See id. at 871. [2] Decisions which have fundamental significance generally fall into two broad categories: (1) those decisions which place beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or impose certain penalties; and (2) decisions which are of sufficient magnitude to necessitate retroactive application under the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967), and Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965). | 3 | 1995–2001 |
Gideon v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences1997Finally, as concerns the fundamental significance of Iacovone , we pursue the analysis of the Supreme Court in Callaway where the Court stated: According to the Witt court, decisions which have fundamental significance generally fall into two broad categories: (a) those decisions such as Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 , 97 S.Ct. 2861 , 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977), "which place beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or impose certain penalties;" and (b) decisions such as Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), "which are of sufficient 1997Finally, as concerns the fundamental significance of Iacovone , we pursue the analysis of the Supreme Court in Callaway where the Court stated: According to the Witt court, decisions which have fundamental significance generally fall into two broad categories: (a) those decisions such as Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 , 97 S.Ct. 2861 , 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977), "which place beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or impose certain penalties;" and (b) decisions such as Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), "which are of sufficient | 3 | 1995–1997 |
Coker v. Georgia
green
2 sentences1997Finally, as concerns the fundamental significance of Iacovone , we pursue the analysis of the Supreme Court in Callaway where the Court stated: According to the Witt court, decisions which have fundamental significance generally fall into two broad categories: (a) those decisions such as Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 , 97 S.Ct. 2861 , 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977), "which place beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or impose certain penalties;" and (b) decisions such as Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), "which are of sufficient 1997Finally, as concerns the fundamental significance of Iacovone , we pursue the analysis of the Supreme Court in Callaway where the Court stated: According to the Witt court, decisions which have fundamental significance generally fall into two broad categories: (a) those decisions such as Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 , 97 S.Ct. 2861 , 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977), "which place beyond the authority of the state the power to regulate certain conduct or impose certain penalties;" and (b) decisions such as Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), "which are of sufficient | 3 | 1995–1997 |
Espinosa v. Florida
green
2 sentences2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c 2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Payne v. Tennessee
green
2 sentences2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c 2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Jackson v. Dugger
green
1 sentence2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Ring
green
2 sentences2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c 2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Thompson v. Dugger
green
1 sentence2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c | 1 | 2002–2002 |
James v. State
green
1 sentence2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hitchcock v. Dugger
green
2 sentences2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c 2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Booth v. Maryland
red
2 sentences2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c 2002(Crim.) 7.11 ("If one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and give that evidence such weight as you feel it should receive in reaching your conclusion as to the sentence that should be imposed."). [49] Ring also comports with the threefold test of Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293 , 87 S.Ct. 1967 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967):(a) the purpose of Ring is of paramount importance, i.e., it is to safeguard the protections guaranteed by the right to trial by jury; (b) the extent of reliance on the c | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Lee v. City of Miami
green
2 sentences1970He said, in part, 121 Fla. 93, 111 , 163 So. 486 , 493: "There is no ambiguity in our constitutional provision prohibiting lotteries and we know of no rule of construction which will permit us to determine that the intent of the Constitution is that the section should apply to certain classes of lotteries and not to others. 1970He said, in part, 121 Fla. 93, 111 , 163 So. 486 , 493: "There is no ambiguity in our constitutional provision prohibiting lotteries and we know of no rule of construction which will permit us to determine that the intent of the Constitution is that the section should apply to certain classes of lotteries and not to others. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.