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 1993–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barrow v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See Barrow, 940 So.2d at 1238 ; Kendrick, 708 So.2d at 1013 . | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. Singletarygreen1 sentence2001Mills v. Singletary, 161 F.3d 1273, 1287 (11th Cir. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Trotter v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Id. at 1238. [2] Apprendi involved a New Jersey statute that authorized an enhanced penalty for a crime proven to be a "hate crime" if the judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime was motivated by a purpose to intimidate an individual or group because of race, color, gender, handicap, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity. | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. Stategreen1 sentence2001Mills v. Singletary, 606 So.2d 622 (Fla.1992) (holding Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222 , 112 S.Ct. 1130 , 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992), was not a change in the law that warranted retroactive application and thus Mills' claim that the felony murder aggravator was an unconstitutional automatic aggravating circumstance in felony murder cases was procedurally barred); Mills v. Dugger, 559 So.2d 578 (Fla.1990); Mills v. State, 476 So.2d 172, 178 (Fla.1985) (citing State v. Dixon, 283 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973)). | 1 | 1 |
Snead v. Stategreen1 sentence1993See Snead v. State, 616 So.2d 964 (Fla.1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mills v. Moore
green
2 sentences2002In our recent holding in Mills v. Moore, 786 So.2d 532 (Fla.2001), this Court stated that "[t]he majority opinion in Apprendi forecloses Mills' claim because Apprendi preserves the constitutionality of capital sentencing schemes like Florida's. 2002The appellant's claim, however, was resolved by this Court in Mills v. Moore, 786 So.2d 532 (Fla.2001). [17] Therein, we held: The majority opinion in Apprendi forecloses Mills' claim because Apprendi preserves the constitutionality of capital sentencing schemes like Florida's. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
Kendrick v. State
green
1 sentence2017See Barrow, 940 So.2d at 1238 ; Kendrick, 708 So.2d at 1013 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property
green
2 sentences2005In United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 , 114 S.Ct. 492 , 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993), the Supreme Court stated that "if a statute does not specify a consequence for noncompliance with statutory timing provisions, the federal courts will not in the ordinary course impose their own coercive sanction." Id. at 63 , 114 S.Ct. 492 (citations omitted). 2005In United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 , 114 S.Ct. 492 , 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993), the Supreme Court stated that "if a statute does not specify a consequence for noncompliance with statutory timing provisions, the federal courts will not in the ordinary course impose their own coercive sanction." Id. at 63 , 114 S.Ct. 492 (citations omitted). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Mills v. Singletary
green
1 sentence2001Mills v. Singletary, 606 So.2d 622 (Fla.1992) (holding Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222 , 112 S.Ct. 1130 , 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992), was not a change in the law that warranted retroactive application and thus Mills' claim that the felony murder aggravator was an unconstitutional automatic aggravating circumstance in felony murder cases was procedurally barred); Mills v. Dugger, 559 So.2d 578 (Fla.1990); Mills v. State, 476 So.2d 172, 178 (Fla.1985) (citing State v. Dixon, 283 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Stringer v. Black
green
2 sentences2001Mills v. Singletary, 606 So.2d 622 (Fla.1992) (holding Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222 , 112 S.Ct. 1130 , 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992), was not a change in the law that warranted retroactive application and thus Mills' claim that the felony murder aggravator was an unconstitutional automatic aggravating circumstance in felony murder cases was procedurally barred); Mills v. Dugger, 559 So.2d 578 (Fla.1990); Mills v. State, 476 So.2d 172, 178 (Fla.1985) (citing State v. Dixon, 283 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973)). 2001Mills v. Singletary, 606 So.2d 622 (Fla.1992) (holding Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222 , 112 S.Ct. 1130 , 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992), was not a change in the law that warranted retroactive application and thus Mills' claim that the felony murder aggravator was an unconstitutional automatic aggravating circumstance in felony murder cases was procedurally barred); Mills v. Dugger, 559 So.2d 578 (Fla.1990); Mills v. State, 476 So.2d 172, 178 (Fla.1985) (citing State v. Dixon, 283 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Dixon
green
1 sentence2001Mills v. Singletary, 606 So.2d 622 (Fla.1992) (holding Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222 , 112 S.Ct. 1130 , 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992), was not a change in the law that warranted retroactive application and thus Mills' claim that the felony murder aggravator was an unconstitutional automatic aggravating circumstance in felony murder cases was procedurally barred); Mills v. Dugger, 559 So.2d 578 (Fla.1990); Mills v. State, 476 So.2d 172, 178 (Fla.1985) (citing State v. Dixon, 283 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Mills v. Dugger
green
1 sentence2001Mills v. Singletary, 606 So.2d 622 (Fla.1992) (holding Stringer v. Black, 503 U.S. 222 , 112 S.Ct. 1130 , 117 L.Ed.2d 367 (1992), was not a change in the law that warranted retroactive application and thus Mills' claim that the felony murder aggravator was an unconstitutional automatic aggravating circumstance in felony murder cases was procedurally barred); Mills v. Dugger, 559 So.2d 578 (Fla.1990); Mills v. State, 476 So.2d 172, 178 (Fla.1985) (citing State v. Dixon, 283 So.2d 1 (Fla.1973)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Sims v. State
green
1 sentence2001Relying on Sims v. State, 753 So.2d 66 (Fla.2000), the trial court found Mills' public records requests to be overly broad, of questionable relevance, and unlikely to lead to discoverable evidence. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Mills v. State
green
1 sentence1996This claim is procedurally barred as we rejected it in the earlier 3.850 motion, see Mills v. State, 507 So.2d 602 (Fla.1987), and Mills has failed to show that he could not have discovered any new evidence within one year of the filing of this motion. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.