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.
7 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Arthur
green
2 sentences2019I would answer that question in the affirmative, as we are duty-bound to follow the Florida Supreme Court's decision in State v. Arthur , 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1980), which unambiguously held that "before release on bail pending trial can ever be denied, the state must come forward with a showing that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great." Id. at 720 . 2019I would answer that question in the affirmative, as we are duty-bound to follow the Florida Supreme Court's decision in State v. Arthur , 390 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 1980), which unambiguously held that "before release on bail pending trial can ever be denied, the state must come forward with a showing that the proof of guilt is evident or the presumption is great." Id. at 720 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Powell v. Texas
green
2 sentences1994Id. at 684-85 , 109 S.Ct. at 3149-50 . 1994Id. at 684-85 , 109 S.Ct. at 3149-50 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Dutilly v. DEPT. OF HEALTH & REHAB. SERVICES
green
1 sentence1992I agree that a proper evidentiary predicate was not established in this case for the introduction of the test results into evidence as required by Dutilly v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Serv., 450 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); however, both tests had been filed with the court for some time before the trial and available to both parties, and no pretrial objections to the test results based on their unreliability had been made. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Drury v. Harding
green
2 sentences1984The First DCA in Drury v. Harding, supra, ruled that the law in effect at the time of the trial is the law that governs the admissibility of evidence and may be applied retrospectively to the defendant, the Court stated at page 361: “The rules and regulations adopted by HRS on December 16, 1982 are procedural and therefore they may be applied retrospectively to the petitioners in this case .... the rules were designed to permit the introduction of test results into evidence without the requirement of expert testimony to lay a predicate for the test’s reliability. 1984State v. Bender, supra. Because the purpose of the rules is to insure that only reliable evidence is placed before a jury, the law in effect at the time of the trial is the law that governs the admissibility of the evidence.” The Fifth DCA in State v. Fardelman, 453 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) concurred in the decision of the Drury case, supra when it said: “This case is like Drury v. Harding, 443 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) and we are in agreement with the Drury ruling. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Fardelman
green
1 sentence1984State v. Bender, supra. Because the purpose of the rules is to insure that only reliable evidence is placed before a jury, the law in effect at the time of the trial is the law that governs the admissibility of the evidence.” The Fifth DCA in State v. Fardelman, 453 So.2d 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) concurred in the decision of the Drury case, supra when it said: “This case is like Drury v. Harding, 443 So.2d 360 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) and we are in agreement with the Drury ruling. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Bender
green
1 sentence1983State v. Bender, supra. Because the purpose of the rules is to ensure that only reliable evidence is placed before a jury, the law in effect at the time of the trial is the law that governs the admissibility of the evidence. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
US Fire Ins. Co. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1980Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977); U. S. Fire Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 362 So.2d 414 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
green
1 sentence1980Wills v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 351 So.2d 29 (Fla.1977); U. S. Fire Insurance Co. v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Co., 362 So.2d 414 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.