8 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Graygreen2 sentences2009“This Court adheres to the doctrine of stare decisis,” State v. J.P., 907 So.2d 1101, 1108 (Fla.2004), because the doctrine is important in “providing] stability to the law and to the society governed by that law.” State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla.1995). 2009"This Court adheres to the doctrine of stare decisis," State v. J.P., 907 So.2d 1101, 1108 (Fla.2004), because the doctrine is important in "provid[ing] stability to the law and to the society governed by that law." State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla.1995). | 3 | 3 |
Muhammad v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) (“It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion....”). 2 Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis. 2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) ("It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again *1109 in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge's opinion. . . ."). [2] Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis. | 3 | 3 |
Tyson v. Mattairgreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) (“It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion....”). 2 Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis. 2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) ("It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again *1109 in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge's opinion. . . ."). [2] Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis. | 3 | 3 |
State v. JPgreen2 sentences2009“This Court adheres to the doctrine of stare decisis,” State v. J.P., 907 So.2d 1101, 1108 (Fla.2004), because the doctrine is important in “providing] stability to the law and to the society governed by that law.” State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla.1995). 2009"This Court adheres to the doctrine of stare decisis," State v. J.P., 907 So.2d 1101, 1108 (Fla.2004), because the doctrine is important in "provid[ing] stability to the law and to the society governed by that law." State v. Gray, 654 So.2d 552, 554 (Fla.1995). | 2 | 3 |
Weiand v. Stategreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) (“It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion....”). 2 Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis. 2004See, e.g., Muhammad v. State, 782 So.2d 343 , 365 n. 16 (Fla.2001); see also Tyson v. Mattair, 8 Fla. 107, 124 (1858) ("It is an established rule to abide by former precedents, stare decisis, where the same points come again *1109 in litigation, as well to keep the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge's opinion. . . ."). [2] Stare decisis bends where there has been a significant change in circumstances since the adoption of the legal rule, see Weiand v. State, 732 So.2d 1044 , 1055 n. 12 (Fla.1999), or where there has been an error in legal analysis. | 2 | 2 |
Forman v. Florida Land Holding Corp.green1 sentence2008Abiding by our precedent "is considered appropriate in most instances in order to produce consistency in the application of legal principles unless for some compelling reason it becomes appropriate to recede therefrom." Forman v. Fla. Land Holding Corp., 102 So.2d 596, 598 (Fla.1958). | 1 | 1 |
Puryear v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See id. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Katos v. Cushing
green
2 sentences2014As set forth in Katos v. Cushing, 601 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), “the test for harmful error is whether, but for such error, a different result may have been reached.” Id. at 613 , (emphasis added). 2014As set forth in Katos v. Cushing, 601 So.2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), “the test for harmful error is whether, but for such error, a different result may have been reached.” Id. at 613 , (emphasis added). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.