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 1996–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sherry Corrie v. David Lee Keulgreen2 sentences2019As for the July 2018 anonymous email that was sent to Appellee’s employer, Appellee acknowledged below that another person could have sent it. 3 In Corrie v. Keul, 160 So. 3d 97, 99 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015), this Court, in reversing an injunction against repeat violence, rejected the appellee’s argument that his allegations and the testimony presented at the hearing showed that the appellant, his neighbor, engaged in stalking and harassment. 2019The appellee had alleged that the appellant threatened to take his house and have him thrown in jail, screamed at him, chased him and his dog down the sidewalk on one occasion, and told him that “it hold 1 in the chamber and 8 more.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Goosen v. Walkergreen1 sentence2015Here, unlike the situation in Goosen v. Walker, 714 So.2d 1149, 1150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), where the testimony showed that the appellant videotaped the appellees on two to four occasions during the preceding four months when the appel-lees were in their own yard or the adjoining area and where the Fourth District found that the conduct constituted stalk- *100 mg, this case presents only a general allegation without any supporting testimony that Appellant took pictures of Appellee’s guests. | 1 | 1 |
Mass v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Larimore, 76 So.3d at 1123 (recognizing that “commitment under the Ryce Act requires a showing that the respondent presently ‘suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder’ ” and concluding that defendant’s “current mental condition obviously could not have been at issue during the earlier proceedings” (quoting § 394.912(10), Fla. Stat. (2010))); cf. Mass v. State, 927 So.2d 157, 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that second Baker Act petition was barred by principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata because it was filed only seven days after first Baker Act petition was d | 1 | 1 |
Larimore v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Larimore, 76 So.3d at 1123 (recognizing that “commitment under the Ryce Act requires a showing that the respondent presently ‘suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder’ ” and concluding that defendant’s “current mental condition obviously could not have been at issue during the earlier proceedings” (quoting § 394.912(10), Fla. Stat. (2010))); cf. Mass v. State, 927 So.2d 157, 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (holding that second Baker Act petition was barred by principles of collateral estoppel and res judicata because it was filed only seven days after first Baker Act petition was d | 1 | 1 |
Crawley v. SCHOOL BD. OF PINELLAS COUNTYgreen1 sentence2010Bd. of Pinellas County, 721 So.2d 396, 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (finding that "the record fails to present even a scintilla of evidence that either student was ‘under the influence’ ”). 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Rigau v. DISTRICT SCH. BD. OF PASCO COUNTYgreen1 sentence2010Bd. of Pasco County., 961 So.2d 382, 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (finding that “the testimony presented at the hearing did not constitute competent substantial evidence that [the student] was under the influence”); Crawley v. Sch. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gunsby
green
2 sentences2002Id. at 924 . 1998State v. Gunsby, 670 So.2d 920 (Fla.1996)( citing Cherry v. State ; Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1995)). | 2 | 1998–2002 |
State v. Townsend
green
2 sentences2001Admitting [the victim]'s hearsay statements under these circumstances is contrary to the very purpose of requiring "other corroborative evidence of the abuse or offense""assur[ing] that a defendant will not be convicted solely on the basis of the hearsay testimony." Townsend, 635 So.2d at 957 . 2000Admitting K.L.'s hearsay statements under these circumstances is contrary to the very purpose of requiring "other corroborative evidence of the abuse or offense""assur[ing] that a defendant will not be convicted solely on the basis of the hearsay testimony." Townsend, 635 So.2d at 957 . | 2 | 2000–2001 |
Harvey v. Dugger
green
2 sentences1998State v. Gunsby, 670 So.2d 920 (Fla.1996)( citing Cherry v. State ; Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1995)). 1996Cf. Cherry v. State, 659 So.2d 1069 (Fla.1995) (cumulative effect of numerous errors in counsel's performance may constitute prejudice); Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1995) (same). | 2 | 1996–1998 |
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences2003The State argues that even if the detective lacked justification to perform the pat-down search, the suppression should be affirmed based on the good-faith exception set forth in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). 2003The State argues that even if the detective lacked justification to perform the pat-down search, the suppression should be affirmed based on the good-faith exception set forth in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 , 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Cherry v. State
green
1 sentence1996Cf. Cherry v. State, 659 So.2d 1069 (Fla.1995) (cumulative effect of numerous errors in counsel's performance may constitute prejudice); Harvey v. Dugger, 656 So.2d 1253 (Fla.1995) (same). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.