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 1996–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wood v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Medina v. State, 919 So. 2d 566, 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (quoting Wood, 750 So. 2d at 594 ) (“[A] petition for writ of error coram nobis must satisfy the two-year limitation of rule 3.850.”). 2006APPLICABLE LAW Defendant in this case has filed a "Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis." In Wood v. State, 750 So.2d 592 (Fla.1999), the Florida Supreme Court held that "[a] petition for writ of error coram nobis must satisfy the two-year limitation of rule 3.850." Id. at 594 . | 1 | 4 |
Medina v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Medina v. State, 919 So. 2d 566, 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (quoting Wood, 750 So. 2d at 594 ) (“[A] petition for writ of error coram nobis must satisfy the two-year limitation of rule 3.850.”). | 1 | 1 |
Carbajal v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Carbajal, 28 So.3d at 190 . | 1 | 1 |
Regan v. Stategreen1 sentence2004Regan, 787 So.2d at 266 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. State
green
1 sentence2005Macaluso I, 836 So.2d at 1080 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Peart v. State
green
1 sentence2004The supreme court was called upon to decide, inter alia, “whether the two-year limitation in rule 3.850 applies to writs alleging a rule 3.172(c)(8) violation and, if so, at what point does the limitation begin to run.” Id. at 45 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Heggs v. State
green
1 sentence2001We reject the appellant's argument that the supreme court decision in Heggs v. State, 759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), created a change in the law that should be applied retroactively such that the appellant's motion, filed beyond the two-year limitation of rule 3.850, should be considered timely. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bannister v. State
green
1 sentence1996Bannister v. State, 606 So.2d at 1248 . | 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.