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 1978–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
McKoy v. North Carolinagreen2 sentences2017Instead, the Court explained that there was no unique definition of relevancy applicable to capital sentencing: When we addressed directly the relevance standard applicable to mitigating evidence in capital cases in McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 440-441 , 110 S.Ct. 1227 , 108 L.Ed.2d 369 , (1990), we spoke in the most expansive terms. 2017Instead, the Court explained that there was no unique definition of relevancy applicable to capital sentencing: When we addressed directly the relevance standard applicable to mitigating evidence in capital cases in McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U.S. 433, 440-441 , 110 S.Ct. 1227 , 108 L.Ed.2d 369 , (1990), we spoke in the most expansive terms. | 1 | 2 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Brown v. State, 117 So. 3d 484, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that the State failed to prove the relevance requirement where "[a]bsolutely nothing about . . . 2019See Brown v. State, 117 So. 3d 484, 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that the State failed to prove the relevance requirement where "[a]bsolutely nothing about . . . | 1 | 1 |
Sellers v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Sellers v. State, 16 So.3d 225, 227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Kasischke v. Stategreen1 sentence2013In Kasischke v. State, 991 So.2d 803, 815 (Fla.2008), the supreme court examined the statute 1 that prohibits sexual offenders on probation from possessing pornographic or obscene material and determined that “[a]n offender does not violate this condition unless the ‘obscene, pornographic, or sexually stimulating’ material at issue is relevant to the ‘deviant behavior pattern.’ ” Whether this relevance requirement can be met will depend upon an examination not only of the pornographic or obscene material but also of the underlying circumstances of the probationer’s offenses. | 1 | 1 |
McLean v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See McLean, 934 So.2d at 1259 . 2009See McLean, 934 So.2d at 1259 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Savinogreen2 sentences2004See Savino, 567 So.2d at 894 (discussing that only after the relevance requirement is satisfied is prejudice or confusion determined). 2004Only after the relevance requirement is satisfied is prejudice or confusion determined." 567 So.2d at 894 . | 1 | 1 |
Robinson v. Eaveygreen1 sentence1983"The chief object in introducing evidence is to secure a rational ascertainment of facts; therefore, facts should not be submitted to the jury, unless they are logically relevant to the issues." Atlantic Coast Line Railway v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274, 282-83 , 139 So. 886, 890 (1932). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bruton v. United States
green
2 sentences2001Here, the trial court found the two statements relevant when it allowed Davis's two redacted statements to come before the jury. [18] Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). 2001Here, the trial court found the two statements relevant when it allowed Davis's two redacted statements to come before the jury. [18] Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 , 88 S.Ct. 1620 , 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Kruse v. State
green
1 sentence1996The following year, the Fourth District, in Kruse v. State, 483 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), cause dismissed, 507 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1987), citing with approval my concurring and dissenting opinion in Hawthorne, adopted the relevance standard in affirming the admissibility of expert opinion testimony pertaining to PTSD. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lyons v. Metropolitan Dade County
green
1 sentence1996The following year, the Fourth District, in Kruse v. State, 483 So.2d 1383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), cause dismissed, 507 So.2d 588 (Fla. 1987), citing with approval my concurring and dissenting opinion in Hawthorne, adopted the relevance standard in affirming the admissibility of expert opinion testimony pertaining to PTSD. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Ward v. State
green
1 sentence1996Thus, it is clear from the above statement that Kruse approved the admission of the opinion testimony, which had compared the expert's observations of the victim's behavior with commonly observed patterns of other syndrome patients, by applying the relevance standard. [8] One year thereafter, this court decided Ward v. State , finding "no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling that child abuse syndrome is an area sufficiently developed to permit an expert to testify that the symptoms observed in the evaluated child are consistent with those displayed by victims of child abuse." Ward, | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Calloway v. State
green
1 sentence1996Two other cases from this court which followed Ward, Brown v. State, 523 So.2d 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and Calloway v. State, 520 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 529 So.2d 693 (Fla.1988), which Judge Miner cites as reaffirming "the admissibility of expert testimony similar to that involved in Ward," ante at 81, once again make no reference to Frye . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hawthorne v. State
green
1 sentence1996In Hawthorne v. State, 470 So.2d 770 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), I wrote a concurring and dissenting opinion in which I urged adoption of the relevance standard for testing the validity of the battered spouse syndrome. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Brown v. State
red
1 sentence1996Two other cases from this court which followed Ward, Brown v. State, 523 So.2d 729 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), and Calloway v. State, 520 So.2d 665 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 529 So.2d 693 (Fla.1988), which Judge Miner cites as reaffirming "the admissibility of expert testimony similar to that involved in Ward," ante at 81, once again make no reference to Frye . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Ramirez v. State
green
1 sentence1996Any lingering uncertainty whether Townsend 's approval of expert opinion testimony involving common symptoms of typically abused children implied that the court had decided that such testimony need comply only with the relevance standard should be laid to rest by the supreme court's most recent pronouncement on the subject in Ramirez v. State, 651 So.2d 1164 (Fla.1995), wherein it once again reaffirmed its allegiance to Frye . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Campbell
green
1 sentence1983"The chief object in introducing evidence is to secure a rational ascertainment of facts; therefore, facts should not be submitted to the jury, unless they are logically relevant to the issues." Atlantic Coast Line Railway v. Campbell, 104 Fla. 274, 282-83 , 139 So. 886, 890 (1932). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Shargaa v. State
green
1 sentence1978Witnesses § 632, at 352 (1948). [8] For this proposition the state refers us to Shargaa v. State, 84 So.2d 42 (Fla. 1955), where the relevance of a defense inquiry was never established. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.