8 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Florida Dcfs v. Pegreen2 sentences2012In Florida Department of Children and Family Services v. P.E., 14 So.3d 228, 236 (Fla.2009), the Florida Supreme Court held that “where an order has been properly entered determining that a parent’s failure to appear constitutes consent pursuant to section 39.801(3)(d), the parent may not challenge the basis for the termination of parental rights.” The court reasoned: Once the trial court has deemed the parent to have consented to the termi nation, there is no basis for the parent to complain that the trial court did not consider evidence establishing the existence of a ground for termination 2010By analogy, the Department cites Florida Department of Children & Family Services v. P.E., 14 So.3d 228, 236 (Fla.2009), in which the Supreme Court of Florida determined that if the trial court enters a statutorily designed “constructive” consent after a parent fails to appear at the termination of parental rights trial despite notice, “the parent may not challenge the basis for the termination of parental rights” alleged in the petition for termination. | 3 | 3 |
State Ex Rel. Vmgreen2 sentences2006V.M., 363 N.J.Super. 529 , 833 A.2d 692, 695-96 (2003) (holding that the “fundamental right of a party — to be present during trial — is equally applicable to a parent in a juvenile delinquency proceeding,” in part because the New Jersey juvenile code firmly established “the importance of the presence of an accused juvenile’s parents at critical stages of the juvenile delinquency process”). 2006V.M., 363 N.J.Super. 529 , 833 A.2d 692, 695-96 (2003) (holding that the “fundamental right of a party — to be present during trial — is equally applicable to a parent in a juvenile delinquency proceeding,” in part because the New Jersey juvenile code firmly established “the importance of the presence of an accused juvenile’s parents at critical stages of the juvenile delinquency process”). | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Robinsongreen2 sentences1982On this point we agree with the comments that the Indiana Supreme Court made when it discussed fraudulent collusion between spouses in Brooks v. Robinson, 259 Ind. 16 , 284 N.E.2d 794, 797 (Ind. 1972): The possibility of fraud and collusion exists in all litigation. 1982On this point we agree with the comments that the Indiana Supreme Court made when it discussed fraudulent collusion between spouses in Brooks v. Robinson, 259 Ind. 16 , 284 N.E.2d 794, 797 (Ind. 1972): The possibility of fraud and collusion exists in all litigation. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. McCoy
green
2 sentences1994In State v. McCoy, 143 Wis.2d 274 , 421 N.W.2d 107 (1988), a statute making it a felony to take a child from a parent in violation of a court order provided an exception if the action was "taken to protect a child from imminent physical harm". 1994In State v. McCoy, 143 Wis.2d 274 , 421 N.W.2d 107 (1988), a statute making it a felony to take a child from a parent in violation of a court order provided an exception if the action was "taken to protect a child from imminent physical harm". | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Martinez v. Rodriquez
green
1 sentence1991Martinez v. Rodriguez, 215 So.2d 305 (Fla. 1968). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. Lovasco
green
2 sentences1981A delay by the state prior to the filing of an information can so adversely affect a defendant's right to prepare a defense that it will deny him the fourteenth amendment's guarantee of due process. [1] Swan v. United States, 436 U.S. 958 , 98 S.Ct. 3073 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1978); United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 , 97 S.Ct. *614 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977); State v. Bennett, 382 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. Griffin, 347 So.2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1978). 1981A delay by the state prior to the filing of an information can so adversely affect a defendant's right to prepare a defense that it will deny him the fourteenth amendment's guarantee of due process. [1] Swan v. United States, 436 U.S. 958 , 98 S.Ct. 3073 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1978); United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 , 97 S.Ct. *614 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977); State v. Bennett, 382 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. Griffin, 347 So.2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
LaPuma v. United States
green
1 sentence1981A delay by the state prior to the filing of an information can so adversely affect a defendant's right to prepare a defense that it will deny him the fourteenth amendment's guarantee of due process. [1] Swan v. United States, 436 U.S. 958 , 98 S.Ct. 3073 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1978); United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 , 97 S.Ct. *614 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977); State v. Bennett, 382 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. Griffin, 347 So.2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
McCoy v. United States
green
2 sentences1981A delay by the state prior to the filing of an information can so adversely affect a defendant's right to prepare a defense that it will deny him the fourteenth amendment's guarantee of due process. [1] Swan v. United States, 436 U.S. 958 , 98 S.Ct. 3073 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1978); United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 , 97 S.Ct. *614 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977); State v. Bennett, 382 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. Griffin, 347 So.2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1978). 1981A delay by the state prior to the filing of an information can so adversely affect a defendant's right to prepare a defense that it will deny him the fourteenth amendment's guarantee of due process. [1] Swan v. United States, 436 U.S. 958 , 98 S.Ct. 3073 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1978); United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 , 97 S.Ct. *614 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977); State v. Bennett, 382 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. Griffin, 347 So.2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Griffin
green
1 sentence1981A delay by the state prior to the filing of an information can so adversely affect a defendant's right to prepare a defense that it will deny him the fourteenth amendment's guarantee of due process. [1] Swan v. United States, 436 U.S. 958 , 98 S.Ct. 3073 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1978); United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 , 97 S.Ct. *614 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977); State v. Bennett, 382 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. Griffin, 347 So.2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Bennett
green
1 sentence1981A delay by the state prior to the filing of an information can so adversely affect a defendant's right to prepare a defense that it will deny him the fourteenth amendment's guarantee of due process. [1] Swan v. United States, 436 U.S. 958 , 98 S.Ct. 3073 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1978); United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 , 97 S.Ct. *614 2044, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977); State v. Bennett, 382 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); State v. Griffin, 347 So.2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), cert. denied, 358 So.2d 134 (Fla. 1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.