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 1988–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Stewart v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Stewart v. State , 491 So.2d 271 , 272 (Fla. 1986) (holding that a request for continuance prior to the expiration of the applicable time period under Rule 3.191 constitutes a waiver of the time limits under the rule). 2018See Stewart v. State , 491 So.2d 271 , 272 (Fla. 1986) (holding that a request for continuance prior to the expiration of the applicable time period under Rule 3.191 constitutes a waiver of the time limits under the rule). | 3 | 3 |
Faulk v. Stategreen1 sentence2024However, Bates does not say when he learned the relevant information or shared it with his lawyer. -5- (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (finding motion filed 14 days after trial was “untimely without good cause” because defense counsel discovered the issue during trial); Belcher v. State, 9 So. 3d 665, 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (finding motion time-barred where defense counsel raised the issue in court more than a month after learning of potential misconduct); cf. Maiya v. Kennedy, 743 So. 2d 1183, 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“The record does not demonstrate good cause to avoid the time limits of the rule; . . | 1 | 1 |
Beyel Bros., Inc. v. Lemenzegreen1 sentence2024However, Bates does not say when he learned the relevant information or shared it with his lawyer. -5- (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (finding motion filed 14 days after trial was “untimely without good cause” because defense counsel discovered the issue during trial); Belcher v. State, 9 So. 3d 665, 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (finding motion time-barred where defense counsel raised the issue in court more than a month after learning of potential misconduct); cf. Maiya v. Kennedy, 743 So. 2d 1183, 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“The record does not demonstrate good cause to avoid the time limits of the rule; . . | 1 | 1 |
Belcher v. Stategreen1 sentence2024However, Bates does not say when he learned the relevant information or shared it with his lawyer. -5- (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (finding motion filed 14 days after trial was “untimely without good cause” because defense counsel discovered the issue during trial); Belcher v. State, 9 So. 3d 665, 666 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (finding motion time-barred where defense counsel raised the issue in court more than a month after learning of potential misconduct); cf. Maiya v. Kennedy, 743 So. 2d 1183, 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“The record does not demonstrate good cause to avoid the time limits of the rule; . . | 1 | 1 |
Koshel v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Koshel v. State, 689 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); see also State 1 We affirm without comment as to the other three arguments Noack raises. 2 See Stewart v. State, 491 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 1986) (holding that a request for continuance prior to the expiration of the applicable time period under Rule 3.191 constitutes a waiver of the time limits under the rule). 2 v. Bowers, 1 So. 3d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (pre-trial waiver applies after mistrial); State v. Ryder, 449 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (same); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bowersgreen1 sentence2018See Koshel v. State, 689 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); see also State 1 We affirm without comment as to the other three arguments Noack raises. 2 See Stewart v. State, 491 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 1986) (holding that a request for continuance prior to the expiration of the applicable time period under Rule 3.191 constitutes a waiver of the time limits under the rule). 2 v. Bowers, 1 So. 3d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (pre-trial waiver applies after mistrial); State v. Ryder, 449 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (same); State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Caraballo v. FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSIONgreen1 sentence2013See Petit- Frere v. State, 108 So.3d 681, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("A postconviction court may, under rule 3.050, extend the two-year rule 3.850 deadline 'for good cause shown.’ ” (quoting State v. Boyd, 846 So.2d 458, 460 (FIa.2003))); see also Manning v. State, 28 So.3d 971, 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("[W]e hold that when a motion for extension to Hie a postconviction motion is denied, the defendant should not appeal that order, but should instead file the intended motion as soon as possible, alleging the grounds for the motion to the best of the defendant’s ability and further alleging the reas | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boydgreen1 sentence2013See Petit- Frere v. State, 108 So.3d 681, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("A postconviction court may, under rule 3.050, extend the two-year rule 3.850 deadline 'for good cause shown.’ ” (quoting State v. Boyd, 846 So.2d 458, 460 (FIa.2003))); see also Manning v. State, 28 So.3d 971, 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("[W]e hold that when a motion for extension to Hie a postconviction motion is denied, the defendant should not appeal that order, but should instead file the intended motion as soon as possible, alleging the grounds for the motion to the best of the defendant’s ability and further alleging the reas | 1 | 1 |
Petit-Frere v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Petit- Frere v. State, 108 So.3d 681, 683 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("A postconviction court may, under rule 3.050, extend the two-year rule 3.850 deadline 'for good cause shown.’ ” (quoting State v. Boyd, 846 So.2d 458, 460 (FIa.2003))); see also Manning v. State, 28 So.3d 971, 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) ("[W]e hold that when a motion for extension to Hie a postconviction motion is denied, the defendant should not appeal that order, but should instead file the intended motion as soon as possible, alleging the grounds for the motion to the best of the defendant’s ability and further alleging the reas | 1 | 1 |
Buenoano v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See id. at 943 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ryder
green
1 sentence2018See Koshel v. State, 689 So. 2d 1229, 1230 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); see also State 1 We affirm without comment as to the other three arguments Noack raises. 2 See Stewart v. State, 491 So. 2d 271, 272 (Fla. 1986) (holding that a request for continuance prior to the expiration of the applicable time period under Rule 3.191 constitutes a waiver of the time limits under the rule). 2 v. Bowers, 1 So. 3d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (pre-trial waiver applies after mistrial); State v. Ryder, 449 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (same); State ex rel. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State Ex Rel. Gibson v. Olliff
green
1 sentence2018Gibson v. Olliff, 452 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (same). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence2011The Second District certified that its decision on this issue expressly and directly conflicts with the following decisions: Gunn v. State, 947 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Brown v. State, 917 So.2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Harris v. State, 854 So.2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); and Harrell v. State, 721 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Harrell v. State
green
1 sentence2011The Second District certified that its decision on this issue expressly and directly conflicts with the following decisions: Gunn v. State, 947 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Brown v. State, 917 So.2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Harris v. State, 854 So.2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); and Harrell v. State, 721 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Harris v. State
green
1 sentence2011The Second District certified that its decision on this issue expressly and directly conflicts with the following decisions: Gunn v. State, 947 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Brown v. State, 917 So.2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Harris v. State, 854 So.2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); and Harrell v. State, 721 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Gunn v. State
green
1 sentence2011The Second District certified that its decision on this issue expressly and directly conflicts with the following decisions: Gunn v. State, 947 So.2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Brown v. State, 917 So.2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Harris v. State, 854 So.2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003); and Harrell v. State, 721 So.2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Amendments to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220—Discovery
green
1 sentence2002Amendments, 674 So.2d at 85 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence1988Brown v. State, 508 So.2d 522 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.