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 2000–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Stategreen2 sentences2018See Wilson v. State, 845 So. 2d 142, 159 (Fla. 2003) (concluding that in cases where an unrebutted presumption of judicial vindictiveness arises, the appropriate remedy is resentencing before a different judge). 4 Reversed and remanded for resentencing. 2011See Wilson, 845 So.2d at 159 (concluding that in cases where an unrebutted presumption of judicial vindictiveness arises, the appropriate remedy is resentencing before a different judge). | 4 | 5 |
MacAr v. MacArgreen2 sentences2025The purpose, procedural posture, and the inquiry itself contrast in significant ways.”). 13 binding on this Court except as limited by Macar v. Macar, 803 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2001). 2 In Casto, the Florida Supreme Court identified two grounds under which a party may challenge a postnuptial agreement: (1) it was entered “under fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, misrepresentation, or overreaching” or (2) it was unfair or unreasonable with an unrebutted presumption of concealment or lack of knowledge regarding the parties’ finances when executed. 508 So. 2d at 333 ; see also Macar, 803 So. 2d at 711 ( 2025The purpose, procedural posture, and the inquiry itself contrast in significant ways.”). 13 binding on this Court except as limited by Macar v. Macar, 803 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2001). 2 In Casto, the Florida Supreme Court identified two grounds under which a party may challenge a postnuptial agreement: (1) it was entered “under fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, misrepresentation, or overreaching” or (2) it was unfair or unreasonable with an unrebutted presumption of concealment or lack of knowledge regarding the parties’ finances when executed. 508 So. 2d at 333 ; see also Macar, 803 So. 2d at 711 ( | 1 | 1 |
Pace v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Harris, 903 So.2d at 366 ; Pace v. State, 903 So.2d 383, 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing and remanding for resentencing because totality of the circumstances indicated a vindictive sentence: trial judge initiated plea discussions off the record, trial judge offered a twelve-year sentence but imposed a twenty-year sentence after trial, and nothing in the record explained the reason for the harsher sentence). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen1 sentence2010See Harris, 903 So.2d at 366 ; Pace v. State, 903 So.2d 383, 384 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing and remanding for resentencing because totality of the circumstances indicated a vindictive sentence: trial judge initiated plea discussions off the record, trial judge offered a twelve-year sentence but imposed a twenty-year sentence after trial, and nothing in the record explained the reason for the harsher sentence). | 1 | 1 |
Cambridge v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See Cambridge v. State, 884 So.2d 535, 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)(finding an unrebutted presumption of vindictive sentencing where “[t]he record contains no explanation of the grounds for the sentence other than the nature of the crime committed, which generally was known to the court prior to the trial”) During the probation violation hearing, Wilson’s probation officer testified that Wilson went to trial on the charge of exposure of sexual organs, was convicted, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Kao v. Lauredogreen1 sentence2000Thus, I would disapprove of language in cases such as Kao v. Lauredo, 617 So.2d 775, 777 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993), and Pierce v. Progressive American Insurance. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Casto v. Casto
green
1 sentence2025The purpose, procedural posture, and the inquiry itself contrast in significant ways.”). 13 binding on this Court except as limited by Macar v. Macar, 803 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 2001). 2 In Casto, the Florida Supreme Court identified two grounds under which a party may challenge a postnuptial agreement: (1) it was entered “under fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, misrepresentation, or overreaching” or (2) it was unfair or unreasonable with an unrebutted presumption of concealment or lack of knowledge regarding the parties’ finances when executed. 508 So. 2d at 333 ; see also Macar, 803 So. 2d at 711 ( | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hernandez v. State
green
2 sentences2019We concluded that "there is an unrebutted presumption that the harsher sentence imposed was the product of vindictive sentencing." Id. 2019In so holding, we observed that "the trial court clearly initiated plea negotiations at the plea hearing by offering Hernandez the State's original five-year deal if he would agree to being sentenced that day." Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.