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 2 courts 1994–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wong v. Belmontesgreen2 sentences2017See Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15, 22 (2009) (holding that a defendant cannot establish the prejudice prong of Strickland with evidence that is “merely cumulative” of evidence already presented). 2017See Wong v. Belmontes, 558 U.S. 15, 22 , 130 S.Ct. 383 , 175 L.Ed.2d 328 (2009) (holding that a defendant cannot establish the prejudice prong of Strickland with evidence that is “merely cumulative” of evidence already presented). | 1 | 1 |
Murray W. (Dusty) Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., Transamerican Press of Texas, Inc. And Mike Parkhurstgreen2 sentences2014The Eleventh Circuit described a “compelling interest” as one in which the information is “highly relevant, necessary to the proper presentation of the case, and unavailable from other sources.” U.S. v. Caporale, 806 F.2d 1487 , 1504 (11th Cir.1986) (citing Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 621 F.2d 721, 726 (5th Cir.1980) (finding a compelling interest where the only way that the claimant could prove his case was with the protected information)). 2014The Eleventh Circuit described a “compelling interest” as one in which the information is “highly relevant, necessary to the proper presentation of the case, and unavailable from other - 15 - sources.” U.S. v. Caporale, 806 F.2d 1487 , 1504 (11th Cir. 1986) (citing Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 621 F.2d 721, 726 (5th Cir. 1980) (finding a compelling interest where the only way that the claimant could prove his case was with the protected information)). | 1 | 1 |
Judy Garland v. Marie Torregreen2 sentences2014The requirement of a compelling interest has been characterized in different ways, but in 1958 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals described a compelling interest sufficient to satisfy the third prong of the test for overcoming the reporter’s privilege as information that goes to the “heart of the plaintiff’s claim.” Garland v. Torre, 259 F.2d 545, 550 (2d Cir.1958). 2014The requirement of a compelling interest has been characterized in different ways, but in 1958 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals described a compelling interest sufficient to satisfy the third prong of the test for overcoming the reporter‟s privilege as information that goes to the “heart of the plaintiff‟s claim.” Garland v. Torre, 259 F.2d 545, 550 (2d Cir. 1958). | 1 | 1 |
Tran v. Smithgreen1 sentence2008See Tran v. Smith, 823 So.2d 210 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Almeida v. State
green
1 sentence2015The parties stipulated that the narrow issue to be decided at the suppression hearing was whether the officer made a good-faith effort to give a simple and straightforward answer, the third prong in the test announced in Almeida v. State, 737 So.2d 520 (Fla.1999). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
cluster 480407
green
2 sentences2014The Eleventh Circuit described a “compelling interest” as one in which the information is “highly relevant, necessary to the proper presentation of the case, and unavailable from other sources.” U.S. v. Caporale, 806 F.2d 1487 , 1504 (11th Cir.1986) (citing Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 621 F.2d 721, 726 (5th Cir.1980) (finding a compelling interest where the only way that the claimant could prove his case was with the protected information)). 2014The Eleventh Circuit described a “compelling interest” as one in which the information is “highly relevant, necessary to the proper presentation of the case, and unavailable from other - 15 - sources.” U.S. v. Caporale, 806 F.2d 1487 , 1504 (11th Cir. 1986) (citing Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 621 F.2d 721, 726 (5th Cir. 1980) (finding a compelling interest where the only way that the claimant could prove his case was with the protected information)). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Aetna Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2006As to the third prong of the test whether LCC had the power to control the details of the work being done by Gamboa and Garcia the competing facts and inferences in this case fall far short of overcoming the presumption of continued employment by Destiny, see Shelby, 246 So.2d at 101 , and establishing a sufficient basis for summary judgment. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Holiday v. State
green
1 sentence1996Id. at 1091 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Warren v. Warren
green
2 sentences1994In so holding, it noted that although marriage is sufficient legal consideration for an antenuptial agreement, "Illinois requires that an antenuptial agreement guarantee both parties an equitable financial settlement in lieu of a waiver of their rights to property or maintenance." 119 Ill.Dec. at 927 , 523 N.E.2d at 683 . 1994In so holding, it noted that although marriage is sufficient legal consideration for an antenuptial agreement, "Illinois requires that an antenuptial agreement guarantee both parties an equitable financial settlement in lieu of a waiver of their rights to property or maintenance." 119 Ill.Dec. at 927 , 523 N.E.2d at 683 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.