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 3 courts 1995–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bolin v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See also Bolin I, 650 So.2d at 23 (“The testimony of Bolin’s former spouse regarding her observations of Bo-lin’s alleged criminal activity was admissible and may be admitted in the new trial.”); Bolin II, 793 So.2d at 897, n. 3 (“The spousal privilege only applies to confidential communications. 2001See Bolin v. State, 650 So.2d 21 (Fla.1995) (hereinafter Bolin I ). | 2 | 3 |
Waite v. Waitegreen2 sentences2019The supreme court abrogated the spousal immunity doctrine in Waite v. Waite, 618 So. 2d 1360 (Fla. 1993). 1999See Waite v. Waite, 618 So.2d 1360 (Fla. 1993). [9] "Procrustes was a robber of Attica, who placed all who fell into his hands upon an iron bed. | 1 | 2 |
Sturiano v. Brooksgreen1 sentence2019See Sturiano v. Brooks, 523 So. 2d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 1988) ("Actions between spouses must be barred when the policy reasons for maintaining the doctrine exist, such as the fear of disruption of the family or other marital discord, or the possibility of fraud or collusion."). | 1 | 1 |
Bolin v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See also Bolin I, 650 So.2d at 23 (“The testimony of Bolin’s former spouse regarding her observations of Bo-lin’s alleged criminal activity was admissible and may be admitted in the new trial.”); Bolin II, 793 So.2d at 897, n. 3 (“The spousal privilege only applies to confidential communications. | 1 | 1 |
Thurman v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., Thurman v. Commonwealth, 975 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Ky.1998) (holding that telephone records showing that a telephone call had been made between spouses did not implicate the spousal privilege where the content of the conversation was not revealed). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bolin v. State
green
2 sentences1995In accord with our decision in Bolin v. State, 642 So.2d 540 (Fla. 1994) (hereinafter Bolin I ), we hold that evidence protected by the spousal privilege was improperly admitted in this case. 1995However, in Bolin v. State, 642 So.2d 540 (Fla. 1994), we reversed the Circuit Court of Hillsborough County and held that the trial court erred in its ruling that the discovery deposition had waived the spousal privilege. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
United States v. Zolin
green
2 sentences2016In particular, as the state elaborated at oral argument, the state contends that, because the Supreme Court looked to United States v. Zolin, 491 US 554 , 109 S Ct 2619 , 105 L Ed 2d 469 (1989), inFrease to determine the necessary threshold showing for an in camera review, the Supreme Court implicitly adopted the abuse of discretion standard of review applied by the United States Supreme Court in Zolin . 2016In particular, as the state elaborated at oral argument, the state contends that, because the Supreme Court looked to United States v. Zolin, 491 US 554 , 109 S Ct 2619 , 105 L Ed 2d 469 (1989), inFrease to determine the necessary threshold showing for an in camera review, the Supreme Court implicitly adopted the abuse of discretion standard of review applied by the United States Supreme Court in Zolin . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kerlin v. State
green
2 sentences2013Finally, Bolin contends that to properly preserve the spousal privilege, this Court should reconsider its holding in Kerlin v. State, 352 So.2d 45 (Fla.1977), in which this Court found that observation of actions does not violate spousal privilege. 2013Finally, Bolin contends that to properly preserve the spousal privilege, this Court should reconsider its holding in Kerlin v. State, 352 So.2d 45 (Fla.1977), in which this Court found that observation of actions does not violate spousal privilege. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Mosley v. State
green
1 sentence2009Weekly S468 , - So.3d -, 2009 WL 2045387 (Fla. July 16, 2009) (holding that defendant waived the spousal privilege because he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a telephone conversation placed while incarcerated after receiving multiple warnings that the call would be monitored and recorded). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ard v. Ard
green
1 sentence1999Ard v. Ard, 414 So.2d 1066 (Fla. 1982). [8] The spousal immunity doctrine has since been abrogated. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.