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 1 courts 1980–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Roundtreegreen2 sentences1985State v. Roundtree, 438 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), petition for review denied, 447 So.2d 888 (Fla. 1984); Howell, 418 So.2d at 1171 . 1985Hallman v. State, 462 So.2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); State v. Roundtree, 438 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), petition for review denied, 447 So.2d 888 (Fla.1984); Howell v. State, 418 So.2d 1164, 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). | 2 | 2 |
Barker v. Wingogreen2 sentences2001We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and properly evaluated the four factors enumerated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972)(holding that four of the factors that courts should assess in determining whether a particular defendant has been deprived of his right to a speedy trial are length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant), to determine whether a constitutional speedy trial violation had occurred. 2001We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and properly evaluated the four factors enumerated in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972)(holding that four of the factors that courts should assess in determining whether a particular defendant has been deprived of his right to a speedy trial are length of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant), to determine whether a constitutional speedy trial violation had occurred. | 1 | 3 |
Howell v. Stategreen2 sentences1985Hallman v. State, 462 So.2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); State v. Roundtree, 438 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), petition for review denied, 447 So.2d 888 (Fla.1984); Howell v. State, 418 So.2d 1164, 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). 1983More specifically, we have analyzed this case from the standpoint of the four factors enumerated in Barker and restated in Howell by which to determine whether a constitutional speedy trial violation has occurred: (1) the length of the delay, e.g., whether the delay is presumptively prejudicial; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the appellant has timely asserted his rights, and (4) the existence of actual prejudice as a result of the delay. 418 So.2d at 1171 . | 1 | 3 |
Hallman v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Seymour v. State, 738 So.2d 984, 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (stating that the four factors pertinent to determining whether the defendant's constitutional right to speedy trial has been violated "are (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant has timely asserted his rights; and (4) the existence of actual prejudice as a result of the delay"); Hallman v. State, 462 So.2d 120, 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Szembruch v. State, 910 So.2d 372, 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); State v. Jenkins, 899 So.2d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). 1985Hallman v. State, 462 So.2d 120 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); State v. Roundtree, 438 So.2d 68, 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), petition for review denied, 447 So.2d 888 (Fla.1984); Howell v. State, 418 So.2d 1164, 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). | 1 | 2 |
Collazo v. Stategreen1 sentence2024We deny the writ based on the constitutional speedy trial claim without further discussion, but we grant the petition as to the burglary of a dwelling charge because that count is barred by the statute of limitations. § 775.15(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2022); cf. Collazo v. State, 42 So. 3d 339, 340 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (granting writ of prohibition based upon the expiration of the statute of limitations on a second-degree felony charge). | 1 | 1 |
Szembruch v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Seymour v. State, 738 So.2d 984, 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (stating that the four factors pertinent to determining whether the defendant's constitutional right to speedy trial has been violated "are (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant has timely asserted his rights; and (4) the existence of actual prejudice as a result of the delay"); Hallman v. State, 462 So.2d 120, 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Szembruch v. State, 910 So.2d 372, 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); State v. Jenkins, 899 So.2d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jenkinsgreen1 sentence2008See Seymour v. State, 738 So.2d 984, 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (stating that the four factors pertinent to determining whether the defendant's constitutional right to speedy trial has been violated "are (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant has timely asserted his rights; and (4) the existence of actual prejudice as a result of the delay"); Hallman v. State, 462 So.2d 120, 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Szembruch v. State, 910 So.2d 372, 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); State v. Jenkins, 899 So.2d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). | 1 | 1 |
Seymour v. Stategreen1 sentence2008See Seymour v. State, 738 So.2d 984, 985 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (stating that the four factors pertinent to determining whether the defendant's constitutional right to speedy trial has been violated "are (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reason for the delay; (3) whether the defendant has timely asserted his rights; and (4) the existence of actual prejudice as a result of the delay"); Hallman v. State, 462 So.2d 120, 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Szembruch v. State, 910 So.2d 372, 375 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); State v. Jenkins, 899 So.2d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pena v. Schultz
green
1 sentence1982While it certainly may be said that the issuance of the writ of prohibition in Pena v. Schultz, supra , was in respect to a purely constitutional claim that the right to a speedy trial had been denied, the same cannot be said of the writs issuing in Wincor, Dickoff and Feger . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Reese
green
1 sentence1980This case does not fall within the rules of Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104 (Fla.1974), and State v. Reese, 359 So.2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Negron v. State
red
1 sentence1980This case does not fall within the rules of Negron v. State, 306 So.2d 104 (Fla.1974), and State v. Reese, 359 So.2d 33 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.