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.
10 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2021 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. Robargegreen1 sentence2021See State v. Robarge, 450 So. 2d 855, 856 (Fla. 1984) (recognizing that “if there is an exception in the enacting clause, the party pleading must show that his adversary is not within the exception; but, if there be an exception in a subsequent clause, or a subsequent statute, that is [a] matter of defen[s]e . . . and is to be shown by the other party.” (quoting Baeumel v. State, 7 So. 371 , 372 (Fla. 1890))). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thompsongreen1 sentence1996Therefore, as a general rule, we have what has already been laid down, namely, ‘if there is an exception in the enacting clause, the party pleading must show that his adversary is not within the exception; but, if there be an exception in a subsequent clause, or a subsequent statute, that is a matter of defense, and is to be shown by the other party.’ 26 Fla. at 75 , 7 So. at 372 (quoting Bishop 1 Criminal Procedure § 639); see also State v. Thompson, 390 So.2d 715, 716 (Fla.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Fouts v. Stategreen1 sentence1984The state further maintains that Fouts v. State, 374 So.2d 22, 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), precludes the state from showing the circumstances of William's confinement because of the possible prejudice which would result from introduction of the details of the nature of his arrest. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baeumel v. State
green
2 sentences1996Therefore, as a general rule, we have what has already been laid down, namely, ‘if there is an exception in the enacting clause, the party pleading must show that his adversary is not within the exception; but, if there be an exception in a subsequent clause, or a subsequent statute, that is a matter of defense, and is to be shown by the other party.’ 26 Fla. at 75 , 7 So. at 372 (quoting Bishop 1 Criminal Procedure § 639); see also State v. Thompson, 390 So.2d 715, 716 (Fla.1980). 1984That case says: [I]f there is an exception in the enacting clause, the party pleading must show that his adversary is not within the exception; but, if there be an exception in a subsequent clause, or subsequent statute, that is matter of defense, and is to be shown by the other party. 26 Fla. at 75 , 7 So. at 372. | 8 | 1965–1996 |
Thompson v. State
neutral
1 sentence1980To support its holding, the court quoted the following general rule, as stated in Baeumel v. State: [2] if there is an exception in the enacting clause, the party pleading must show that his adversary is not within the exception; but, if there be an exception in a subsequent clause, or subsequent statute, that is a matter of defense, and is to be shown by the other party. 378 So.2d at 860 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Ferrell v. State
green
1 sentence1965Section 906.12, F.S.A., provides that, "No indictment or information for an offense created or defined by statute shall be invalid or insufficient merely for the reason that it fails to negative any exception, excuse or proviso contained in the statute creating or defining the offense." This statute is consistent with the decisional law as announced in Baeumel v. State, 26 Fla. 71 , 7 So. 371 , holding that if there is an exception in the enacting clause of a statute the party pleading must show that his adversary is not within the exception, but (as in the enactment of § 790.23, supra) if the | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.