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 1999–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Witherspoon v. Stategreen2 sentences2002We have for review a decision of a district court of appeal on the following question, which the court certified to be of great public importance: [W]hether, if the reason which prompted the Tripp rule is not present, Tripp must apply. [1] Witherspoon v. State, 776 So.2d 984, 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). 2002We have for review a decision of a district court of appeal on the following question, which the court certified to be of great public importance: [W]hether, if the reason which prompted the Tripp rule is not present, Tripp must apply. [1] Witherspoon v. State, 776 So.2d 984, 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). | 2 | 2 |
Owens v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Owens v. State, 41 So.3d 372, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Moore v. State, 882 So.2d 977 (Fla.2004)). | 1 | 1 |
Matthews v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Matthews, 854 So.2d at 240 . | 1 | 1 |
Tucker v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Id. at 400. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tripp v. State
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 942-43 . 2010Tripp, 622 So.2d at 942-43 . | 3 | 2004–2015 |
Priester v. State
green
2 sentences2001While we agree with the court in Priester v. State, 711 So.2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), that based on the reasoning of Tripp , the Tripp rule should come into play only when the guideline maximum is exceeded, we also agree with Priester that, when given the opportunity to do so in Cook v. State, 645 So.2d 436 (Fla.1994), the supreme court refused to so limit its holding. 2001While we agree with the court in Priester v. State, 711 So.2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), that based on the reasoning of Tripp , the Tripp rule should come into play only when the guideline maximum is exceeded, we also agree with Priester that, when given the opportunity to do so in Cook v. State, 645 So.2d 436 (Fla.1994), the supreme court refused to so limit its holding. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Moore v. State
green
1 sentence2015Owens v. State, 41 So.3d 372, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citing Moore v. State, 882 So.2d 977 (Fla.2004)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lyons v. State
green
1 sentence2005Goree v. State, 817 So.2d 979 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Lyons v. State, 690 So.2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Goree v. State
neutral
1 sentence2005Goree v. State, 817 So.2d 979 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Lyons v. State, 690 So.2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hodgdon v. State
green
1 sentence2004The next instance in which this Court was presented with circumstances to address a Tripp issue was in Hodgdon v. State, 789 So.2d 958 (Fla.2001). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Witherspoon
green
1 sentence2004The final decision from this Court in the Tripp progeny was State v. Witherspoon, 810 So.2d 871 (Fla.2002). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Duncan v. State
green
1 sentence2004With regard to the Tripp issue, the Fourth District certified conflict with Duncan v. State, 686 So.2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), in which the Second District held that Tripp credit did not apply to habitual felony offender sentences. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Cook v. State
green
2 sentences2001While we agree with the court in Priester v. State, 711 So.2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), that based on the reasoning of Tripp , the Tripp rule should come into play only when the guideline maximum is exceeded, we also agree with Priester that, when given the opportunity to do so in Cook v. State, 645 So.2d 436 (Fla.1994), the supreme court refused to so limit its holding. 2001While we agree with the court in Priester v. State, 711 So.2d 177 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), that based on the reasoning of Tripp , the Tripp rule should come into play only when the guideline maximum is exceeded, we also agree with Priester that, when given the opportunity to do so in Cook v. State, 645 So.2d 436 (Fla.1994), the supreme court refused to so limit its holding. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.