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 1 courts 2006–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Madison v. Stategreen2 sentences2026See Madison, 132 So. 3d at 247–48 (Wetherell, J. dissenting) ("The argument on the motion addressed the McKay factors . . . and . . . it is reasonable and appropriate for us to assume that the court considered these factors in ruling on the motion . . . . 2024Even so, counsel and the trial court are not required to “engage in an elaborate discussion of caselaw; instead, a trial court’s exercise of discretion need only be based on consideration of the McKay factors.” Madison, 132 So. 3d at 242 . | 2 | 3 |
McKay v. Stategreen2 sentences2026The presumption of correctness that the trial court's ruling is supposed to be afforded on appeal requires us to infer that the court properly considered all of the circumstances presented at the hearing on Appellant's motion for a continuance in ruling on the motion."); cf. McKay, 504 So. 2d at 1282 ("Thus, when a defendant asks for a continuance on the eve of trial in order to allow time for recently retained counsel to prepare, the court must balance that request against many other factors, such as those outlined in U.S. v. Uptain, 531 F.2d 1281 (5th Cir. 1976)." (citing Birt v. Montgomery, 2024McKay v. State, 504 So. 2d 1280, 1282 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Madison v. State, 132 So. 3d 237, 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (citing Brown v. State, 942 So. 2d 12, 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“We do not suggest that counsel and the trial court must engage in an elaborate discussion of caselaw; instead, a trial court’s exercise of discretion need only be based on consideration of the McKay factors.”). 2024See, e.g., Madison v. State, 132 So. 3d 237, 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (citing Brown v. State, 942 So. 2d 12, 14 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“We do not suggest that counsel and the trial court must engage in an elaborate discussion of caselaw; instead, a trial court’s exercise of discretion need only be based on consideration of the McKay factors.”). | 2 | 2 |
Trocola v. Stategreen2 sentences2013M.F. v. State, 920 So.2d 1252, 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (applying McKay factors); Trocola v. State, 867 So.2d 1229, 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ("While not intending to imply that this list [from McKay ] is exclusive, we agree that the factors are fair, well-considered and reasonable, and provide a sound basis to evaluate the present case.”); D.N. v. State, 855 So.2d 258, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (applying McKay factors). . 2011Trocola, 867 So.2d at 1231 . | 1 | 2 |
Billy Sunday Birt v. Charles N. Montgomery, Warden, Georgia State Prisongreen1 sentence2026The presumption of correctness that the trial court's ruling is supposed to be afforded on appeal requires us to infer that the court properly considered all of the circumstances presented at the hearing on Appellant's motion for a continuance in ruling on the motion."); cf. McKay, 504 So. 2d at 1282 ("Thus, when a defendant asks for a continuance on the eve of trial in order to allow time for recently retained counsel to prepare, the court must balance that request against many other factors, such as those outlined in U.S. v. Uptain, 531 F.2d 1281 (5th Cir. 1976)." (citing Birt v. Montgomery, | 1 | 1 |
Lawnlite Co. v. American Re-Insurance Co.green1 sentence2014Likewise, in Mena v. State, 451 So.2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), this Court found no error in the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for a continuance and to allow defense counsel to withdraw as counsel for the defendant, which was made on the day of trial. | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 979 So.2d 442, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). 2013See, e.g., Jackson v. State, 979 So.2d 442, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). | 1 | 1 |
DN v. Stategreen1 sentence2013M.F. v. State, 920 So.2d 1252, 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (applying McKay factors); Trocola v. State, 867 So.2d 1229, 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ("While not intending to imply that this list [from McKay ] is exclusive, we agree that the factors are fair, well-considered and reasonable, and provide a sound basis to evaluate the present case.”); D.N. v. State, 855 So.2d 258, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (applying McKay factors). . | 1 | 1 |
MF v. Stategreen1 sentence2013M.F. v. State, 920 So.2d 1252, 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (applying McKay factors); Trocola v. State, 867 So.2d 1229, 1231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ("While not intending to imply that this list [from McKay ] is exclusive, we agree that the factors are fair, well-considered and reasonable, and provide a sound basis to evaluate the present case.”); D.N. v. State, 855 So.2d 258, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (applying McKay factors). . | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Brown v. State, 66 So.3d 1046, 1048-49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“While the trial court appeared frustrated by the defendant’s last minute request, it was incumbent on the court to review the criteria before denying the motion simply to move the case to trial.”). 2013Brown v. State, 66 So.3d 1046, 1048-49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“While the trial court appeared frustrated by the defendant’s last minute request, it was incumbent on the court to review the criteria before denying the motion simply to move the case to trial.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Terry Ray Uptain
green
1 sentence2026The presumption of correctness that the trial court's ruling is supposed to be afforded on appeal requires us to infer that the court properly considered all of the circumstances presented at the hearing on Appellant's motion for a continuance in ruling on the motion."); cf. McKay, 504 So. 2d at 1282 ("Thus, when a defendant asks for a continuance on the eve of trial in order to allow time for recently retained counsel to prepare, the court must balance that request against many other factors, such as those outlined in U.S. v. Uptain, 531 F.2d 1281 (5th Cir. 1976)." (citing Birt v. Montgomery, | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Bermudez v. Reid
green
1 sentence2026The presumption of correctness that the trial court's ruling is supposed to be afforded on appeal requires us to infer that the court properly considered all of the circumstances presented at the hearing on Appellant's motion for a continuance in ruling on the motion."); cf. McKay, 504 So. 2d at 1282 ("Thus, when a defendant asks for a continuance on the eve of trial in order to allow time for recently retained counsel to prepare, the court must balance that request against many other factors, such as those outlined in U.S. v. Uptain, 531 F.2d 1281 (5th Cir. 1976)." (citing Birt v. Montgomery, | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Nelson v. State
green
1 sentence2013Nelson v. State, 274 So.2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); see generally Angela D. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Richardson v. State
neutral
1 sentence2006While the State is correct, see Richardson v. State, 885 So.2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), there is nothing in the record demonstrating McKay’s plea was the result of a negotiated agreement. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.