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 1985–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
New Jerusalem Church of God, Inc. v. Sneads Community Church, Inc.green1 sentence2022See New Jerusalem Church of God, Inc. v. Sneads Cmty. Church, Inc., 147 So. 3d 25, 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Fitzpatrick v. Stategreen1 sentence2016We have “explained that the test for suppression of an out-of-court identification is two-fold: ‘(1) whether the police used an unnecessarily suggestive procedure to obtain the out-of-court identification; and (2) if so, considering all the circumstances, whether the suggestive procedure gave rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.’ ” Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So. 2d 495, 517-18 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Rimmer v. State, 825 So. 2d 304, 316 (Fla. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Rimmer v. Stategreen1 sentence2016We have “explained that the test for suppression of an out-of-court identification is two-fold: ‘(1) whether the police used an unnecessarily suggestive procedure to obtain the out-of-court identification; and (2) if so, considering all the circumstances, whether the suggestive procedure gave rise to a substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.’ ” Fitzpatrick v. State, 900 So. 2d 495, 517-18 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Rimmer v. State, 825 So. 2d 304, 316 (Fla. 2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Behring Corp.green1 sentence1985See Bennett v. Behring Corporation, 466 F. Supp. 689 (S.D.Fla. 1979), appeal dismissed 629 F.2d 393 (5th Cir.1980); Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc., 398 So.2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied 409 So.2d 1094 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
William R. Bennett v. Behring Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Al J. Schechtergreen1 sentence1985See Bennett v. Behring Corporation, 466 F. Supp. 689 (S.D.Fla. 1979), appeal dismissed 629 F.2d 393 (5th Cir.1980); Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc., 398 So.2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied 409 So.2d 1094 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
IT v. State
green
2 sentences2003In Gilbert , the Fourth District cogently explained the nature of the burden of proof as follows: In I.T. v. State, 796 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), this court adopted a two pronged test for determining whether the evidence adduced at trial to prove the value of the stolen property is sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal. 2002In I.T. v. State, 796 So.2d 1220 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), this court adopted a two pronged test for determining whether the evidence adduced at trial to prove the value of the stolen property is sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal. | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2008Id. at 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . 2008Id. at 688 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Murphy v. Florida
green
2 sentences2005Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 , 95 S.Ct. 2031 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). 2005Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794 , 95 S.Ct. 2031 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc.
green
1 sentence1985See Bennett v. Behring Corporation, 466 F. Supp. 689 (S.D.Fla. 1979), appeal dismissed 629 F.2d 393 (5th Cir.1980); Kohl v. Bay Colony Club Condominium, Inc., 398 So.2d 865 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied 409 So.2d 1094 (1981). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Steinhardt v. Rudolph
green
1 sentence1985While this test is not a rule of law, it is an effective tool in deciding the question of unconscionability, Steinhardt v. Rudolph, 422 So.2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), and this court has held that there must be a coalescing of the two elements, procedural and substantive unconscionability, before a case for unconscionability is made out. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.