10 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mark Anthony Poole v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2020Poole v. State, 151 So. 3d 402, 419 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ofelia Garcia Lopezgreen2 sentences2016As the majority explains, when considering its functional qualities, a unanimity requirement “furthers the deliberative process by requiring the minority view to be examined and, if possible, accepted or rejected by the entire jury.” Majority op. at 33 (quoting United States v. Lopez, 581 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1978)) (emphasis added). 2016As the majority explains, when considering its functional qualities, a unanimity requirement “furthers the deliberative process by requiring the minority view to be examined and, if possible, accepted or rejected by the entire jury.” Majority op. at 58 (quoting United States v. Lopez, 581 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir.1978)) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Burch v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2010See Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 , 132 n. 4, 99 S.Ct. 1623 , 60 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979). 2010See Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 , 132 n. 4, 99 S.Ct. 1623 , 60 L.Ed.2d 96 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Thatchgreen2 sentences2004But cf. Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 630-45 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991) (plurality opinion) (holding unanimity was not required as to alternative, equally culpable, mental states where a single crime was charged); Commw. v. Thatch, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 904 , 653 N.E.2d 1121, 1123 (1995) ("When a single count is charged and where the spatial and temporal separations between acts are short, ... rather than a succession of clearly detached incidents, a specific unanimity instruction is not required."). 2004But cf. Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 630-45 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991) (plurality opinion) (holding unanimity was not required as to alternative, equally culpable, mental states where a single crime was charged); Commw. v. Thatch, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 904 , 653 N.E.2d 1121, 1123 (1995) ("When a single count is charged and where the spatial and temporal separations between acts are short, ... rather than a succession of clearly detached incidents, a specific unanimity instruction is not required."). | 1 | 1 |
Dean v. Stategreen1 sentence1993Dean v. State, 478 So.2d 38, 40-42 (Fla. 1985). [7] The board members later learned that, under the corporation's bylaws, a unanimous vote was required to authorize board action. [8] Because of our holding that a majority of the board had apparent authority, we need not reach the issue as to whether the board had actual authority to consent to the search and seizure given the unanimity requirement of the corporation's bylaws; however, in light of section 617.0830, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990) (general standards for directors), and section 617.0832, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990) (director conf | 1 | 1 |
In Re Florida Rules of Criminal Proceduregreen1 sentence1992See In re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 272 So.2d 65, 66-69 (Fla. 1972) (Roberts, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Diamond Cab Co. of Miami v. Kinggreen1 sentence1972Accord, Diamond Cab Co. of Miami v. King, 146 So.2d 889 (Fla.1962). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Schad v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2004But cf. Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 630-45 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991) (plurality opinion) (holding unanimity was not required as to alternative, equally culpable, mental states where a single crime was charged); Commw. v. Thatch, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 904 , 653 N.E.2d 1121, 1123 (1995) ("When a single count is charged and where the spatial and temporal separations between acts are short, ... rather than a succession of clearly detached incidents, a specific unanimity instruction is not required."). 2004But cf. Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 630-45 , 111 S.Ct. 2491 , 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991) (plurality opinion) (holding unanimity was not required as to alternative, equally culpable, mental states where a single crime was charged); Commw. v. Thatch, 39 Mass.App.Ct. 904 , 653 N.E.2d 1121, 1123 (1995) ("When a single count is charged and where the spatial and temporal separations between acts are short, ... rather than a succession of clearly detached incidents, a specific unanimity instruction is not required."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 463825
green
2 sentences1996Id. 1992We therefore agree with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' resolution of this issue in Sanchez v. United States, 782 F.2d 928 (11th Cir.1986): "The principal concern of opponents of a waiver provision is the potential for coercion by judges and prosecutors who would propose the waiver to the defendant and then be in a position to recommend or impose a harsh sentence upon a defendant who refuses. | 2 | 1992–1996 |
cluster 1749
green
1 sentence2026Id. (citing Mills, 486 U.S. at 380-81 ). - 26 - The verdict form here did not indicate a unanimity requirement. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Mills v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2026Id. (citing Mills, 486 U.S. at 380-81 ). - 26 - The verdict form here did not indicate a unanimity requirement. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Gary Czajkowski v. State of Florida
red
2 sentences2020I fully concur in the majority opinion and write separately to address the dissent’s contentions: (1) that “national consensus,” dissenting op. at 53, is relevant to our consideration of any legal issue decided today; (2) that today’s decision “returns Florida to its status as an absolute outlier among the jurisdictions in this country that utilize the death penalty,” id. at 51; (3) that “settled [Florida] law compelled this Court’s conclusion in Hurst v. State [ 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016)] that the unanimity requirement applied not only to the jury’s duty to determine whether to convict the de 2020I fully concur in the majority opinion and write separately to address the dissent’s contentions: (1) that “national consensus,” dissenting op. at 53, is relevant to our consideration of any legal issue decided today; (2) that today’s decision “returns Florida to its status as an absolute outlier among the jurisdictions in this country that utilize the death penalty,” id. at 51; (3) that “settled [Florida] law compelled this Court’s conclusion in Hurst v. State [ 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016)] that the unanimity requirement applied not only to the jury’s duty to determine whether to convict the de | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2007NOTES [1] The fifteen claims were: (1) Peede was not competent to stand trial; (2) he received an inadequate psychiatric evaluation; (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (4) counsel was ineffective in failing to present an insanity defense; (5) there was a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); (6) the instructions diminished the responsibility of the jury; (7) the jury instruction on jurisdiction was improper; (8) there was an improper instruction to the jury shifting the burden of proof to Peede during the penalty phase; (9) the jur 2007NOTES [1] The fifteen claims were: (1) Peede was not competent to stand trial; (2) he received an inadequate psychiatric evaluation; (3) he received ineffective assistance of counsel; (4) counsel was ineffective in failing to present an insanity defense; (5) there was a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963); (6) the instructions diminished the responsibility of the jury; (7) the jury instruction on jurisdiction was improper; (8) there was an improper instruction to the jury shifting the burden of proof to Peede during the penalty phase; (9) the jur | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.