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.
8 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vincent J. Klaus v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Klaus v. State, 236 So. 3d 483, 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (recognizing that the impeachment of a State’s key witness could have made a difference at trial when “his ‘trustworthiness was critical to the State’s case’” (citations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Dennis v. Stategreen1 sentence2018Taylor I , 937 So.2d at 599 ; e.g. , Dennis v. State , 109 So.3d 680 , 692 (Fla. 2012) ("Dennis' claim ... is procedurally barred because it was raised and rejected on direct appeal."). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Mooregreen1 sentence2012“With regard to evidentiary objections which trial counsel made during the trial and which appellate counsel did not raise on direct appeal, this Court evaluates the prejudice or second prong of the Strickland test first.” Valle, 837 So.2d at 910 (quoting Jones v. Moore, 794 So.2d 579, 583 (Fla.2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Arbelaez v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Arbelaez v. State, 775 So.2d 909, 915 (Fla.2000) (“[Defendant] may not relitigate procedurally barred claims by couching them in terms of ineffective assistance of counsel.”). | 1 | 1 |
Parrish v. AmSouth Bank, N.A.green1 sentence2010See Parrish v. AmSouth Bank, N.A., 657 So.2d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (concluding that trial court’s erroneous denial of motion to dismiss challenging plaintiffs jurisdictional allegations was harmless where the evidence presented at trial established jurisdiction over the defendant). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dennis v. State
green
2 sentences2021After concluding that the trial court erred in denying Dennis an evidentiary hearing, we held that the error was harmless because there was “no reasonable possibility that the trial court’s failure to make a pretrial evidentiary determination regarding Dennis’s immunity claim contributed to Dennis’s conviction” at trial, because Dennis presented his claim of self-defense to the jury, but the jury rejected that claim and “determined that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Dennis committed the lesser included offense of felony battery.” Id. at 464 . 2021In concluding that the error was harmless, the Florida Supreme Court explained that there was “no reasonable possibility that the trial court’s failure to make a pretrial evidentiary determination regarding Dennis’s immunity claim contributed to Dennis’s conviction” because the jury rejected his claim of self-defense and “determined that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that Dennis committed the lesser included offense of felony battery.” Boston, 2021 WL 4613829 , *3 (quoting Dennis, 51 So. 3d at 464 ). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Taylor v. State
green
1 sentence2018Taylor I , 937 So.2d at 599 ; e.g. , Dennis v. State , 109 So.3d 680 , 692 (Fla. 2012) ("Dennis' claim ... is procedurally barred because it was raised and rejected on direct appeal."). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Valle v. Moore
green
1 sentence2012“With regard to evidentiary objections which trial counsel made during the trial and which appellate counsel did not raise on direct appeal, this Court evaluates the prejudice or second prong of the Strickland test first.” Valle, 837 So.2d at 910 (quoting Jones v. Moore, 794 So.2d 579, 583 (Fla.2001)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Morton v. State
red
1 sentence2002In Morton v. State, 689 So.2d 259 (Fla. 1997), we discussed the ability of a party to impeach its own witness: Obviously, no single rule can be delineated to cover all of the circumstances under which parties will seek to impeach their own witnesses. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Everton v. Willard
green
1 sentence1991Everton v. Willard, 468 So.2d 936 (Fla. 1985). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.