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.
9 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lane v. Stategreen2 sentences2025The rule requires a trial court “to conduct a hearing for competency to stand trial whenever it reasonably appears necessary, whether requested or not, to ensure that a defendant meets the standard of competency . . . .” Lane, 388 So. 2d at 1025 . 2024The rule requires a trial court “to conduct a hearing for competency to stand trial whenever it reasonably appears necessary, whether requested or not, to ensure that a defendant meets the standard of competency . . . .” Lane, 388 So. 2d at 1025 . 5 In most cases, defense counsel will raise questions as to defendant’s competency and seek an order from the trial court appointing an expert to evaluate the defendant before proceeding to trial. | 3 | 7 |
Scott v. Stategreen2 sentences2010See Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595, 597 (Fla.1982) ("[I]t is the responsibility of the trial court to conduct a hearing for competency to stand trial whenever it reasonably appears necessary to ensure that a defendant meets the standard of competency."). 2010See Scott v. State, 420 So.2d 595, 597 (Fla.1982) (“[I]t is the responsibility of the trial court to conduct a hearing for competency to stand trial whenever it reasonably appears necessary to ensure that a defendant meets the standard of competency.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dusky v. United States
green
2 sentences1982The trial court has the responsibility to conduct a hearing for competency to stand trial whenever it reasonably appears necessary, whether requested or not, to ensure that a defendant meets the standard of competency set forth in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). 1982The trial court has the responsibility to conduct a hearing for competency to stand trial whenever it reasonably appears necessary, whether requested or not, to ensure that a defendant meets the standard of competency set forth in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Drope v. Missouri
green
2 sentences1981In Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla.1980), the Supreme Court, in discussing competency to stand trial, stated: “[T]he law is now clear that the trial court has the responsibility to conduct a hearing for competency to stand trial whenever it reasonably appears necessary, whether requested or not, to ensure that a defendant meets the standard of competency set forth in Dusky.” 1 The Florida Supreme Court, in Lane, supra, cited Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 , 95 S.Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975), and agreed that even when a defendant is competent at the commencement of his trial, a trial cou 1981In Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022 (Fla.1980), the Supreme Court, in discussing competency to stand trial, stated: “[T]he law is now clear that the trial court has the responsibility to conduct a hearing for competency to stand trial whenever it reasonably appears necessary, whether requested or not, to ensure that a defendant meets the standard of competency set forth in Dusky.” 1 The Florida Supreme Court, in Lane, supra, cited Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 , 95 S.Ct. 896 , 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975), and agreed that even when a defendant is competent at the commencement of his trial, a trial cou | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.