10 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilkinson v. Austingreen2 sentences2017Then, in Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 223 (2005), the United States Supreme Court reiterated “that the touchstone of the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the language of regulations regarding those conditions but the nature of those conditions themselves ‘in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.’ ” (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484 ). 2016The Court explained this point as follows: After Sandin, it is clear that the touchstone of the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the language of regulations regarding those conditions but the nature of those 59 conditions themselves ‘in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.’ Wilkinson, 545 U.S. at 223 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Khounsavanhgreen1 sentence2006Concerning this fair probability: "`Probability is the touchstone' of this inquiry." United States v. Baldyga, 233 F.3d 674, 683 (1st Cir.2000) (quoting United States v. Khounsavanh, 113 F.3d 279, 283 (1st Cir.1997)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Baldygagreen1 sentence2006Concerning this fair probability: "`Probability is the touchstone' of this inquiry." United States v. Baldyga, 233 F.3d 674, 683 (1st Cir.2000) (quoting United States v. Khounsavanh, 113 F.3d 279, 283 (1st Cir.1997)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. John E. Burkegreen1 sentence2006Thus, "[t]he standard of probable cause requires a probability, not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity." United States v. Burke, 999 F.2d 596, 599 (1st Cir.1993); see also United States v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509, 518 (4th Cir.2004) ("The probable cause standard does not require officials to possess an airtight case before taking action." (internal quotations and citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Timothy Dequasiegreen1 sentence2006Thus, "[t]he standard of probable cause requires a probability, not a prima facie showing, of criminal activity." United States v. Burke, 999 F.2d 596, 599 (1st Cir.1993); see also United States v. DeQuasie, 373 F.3d 509, 518 (4th Cir.2004) ("The probable cause standard does not require officials to possess an airtight case before taking action." (internal quotations and citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Elias Covington v. Department of Health and Human Servicesgreen1 sentence1988For the reasons stated above, it is not reasonable to expect McLaughlin to be aware of possible alternatives to submitting a date of retirement. "[W]hether the employee made an informed choice is the touchstone of our analysis." Covington v. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 750 F.2d 937, 942 (Fed. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Terry v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2011The Court elaborated on these principles in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , *793 108-09, 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977): The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always "the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 2011The Court elaborated on these principles in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , *793 108-09, 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977): The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always "the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). | 4 | 1980–2011 |
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
green
2 sentences1999As the Supreme Court explained in Mimms, supra, "the touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always `the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security'," Mimms, 434 U.S. at 108-109 , 98 S.Ct. 330 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)), and the reasonableness "depends `on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers'," id. at 109 , 98 S.Ct. 330 (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponc 1999As the Supreme Court explained in Mimms, supra, "the touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always `the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security'," Mimms, 434 U.S. at 108-109 , 98 S.Ct. 330 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)), and the reasonableness "depends `on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers'," id. at 109 , 98 S.Ct. 330 (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponc | 3 | 1999–2011 |
Pennsylvania v. Mimms
green
2 sentences2011The Court elaborated on these principles in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , *793 108-09, 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977): The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always "the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). 2011The Court elaborated on these principles in Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , *793 108-09, 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977): The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always "the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1878 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). | 3 | 1999–2011 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
1 sentence2024As in Graham, we adhere to Blockburger’s distinct acts test, which recognized that “[e]ach of several successive” violations - 27 - “constitutes a distinct offense, however closely they may follow each other” and placed the focus of the analysis squarely on whether there were “successive impulses.” Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 302 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Sandin v. Conner
green
2 sentences2017The Court in Wilkinson further pointed out the real impact of the Court’s prior opinion, when it said: -9- After Sandin, it is clear that the touchstone of the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the language of regulations regarding those conditions but the nature of those conditions themselves “in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 223 (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484 ) (emphasis added). 2017The Court in Wilkinson further pointed out the real impact of the Court’s prior opinion, when it said: -9- After Sandin, it is clear that the touchstone of the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the language of regulations regarding those conditions but the nature of those conditions themselves “in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 223 (quoting Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484 ) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Moskal v. United States
green
2 sentences2011“The touchstone of the rule of lenity is statutory ambiguity.” Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 107 , 111 S.Ct. 461 , 112 L.Ed.2d 449 (1990). 2011“The touchstone of the rule of lenity is statutory ambiguity.” Moskal v. United States, 498 U.S. 103, 107 , 111 S.Ct. 461 , 112 L.Ed.2d 449 (1990). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.