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 1999–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coppola v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Regan, 787 So. 2d at 267 ; see also Coppola, 795 So. 2d at 259 (adopting the reasoning of Regan). 2006Regan, 787 So.2d at 267 ; see also Coppola, 795 So.2d at 259 (adopting the reasoning of Regan). | 2 | 2 |
Steele v. Kehoegreen2 sentences2000See id. at 934-35 . 1999See id. 747 So.2d at 934 . | 2 | 2 |
Gaskin v. Stateyellow1 sentence2023See Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 , 517–18 (Fla. 1999) (holding that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s rule 3.850 amended motion for postconviction relief on the ground that the new claims raised in the amended motion were procedurally barred, when the motion was filed within the time limit under the rule and before the trial court had ruled on the original motion), receded from in part on other grounds, Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 , 582–83 (Fla. 2004); Padro-Guerrero v. State, 123 So. 3d 670, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“As long as the two-year limitation period [of rule 3.8 | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 , 517–18 (Fla. 1999) (holding that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s rule 3.850 amended motion for postconviction relief on the ground that the new claims raised in the amended motion were procedurally barred, when the motion was filed within the time limit under the rule and before the trial court had ruled on the original motion), receded from in part on other grounds, Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 , 582–83 (Fla. 2004); Padro-Guerrero v. State, 123 So. 3d 670, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“As long as the two-year limitation period [of rule 3.8 | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2023Second, citing to Johnson v. State, 114 So. 3d 205, 206 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012), the court determined that the remedy of habeas corpus could not be used as a substitute to the filing of a rule 3.850 motion or to otherwise expand the two-year filing requirement under rule 3.850. | 1 | 1 |
Padro-Guerrero v. Stategreen1 sentence2023See Gaskin v. State, 737 So. 2d 509 , 517–18 (Fla. 1999) (holding that the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s rule 3.850 amended motion for postconviction relief on the ground that the new claims raised in the amended motion were procedurally barred, when the motion was filed within the time limit under the rule and before the trial court had ruled on the original motion), receded from in part on other grounds, Nelson v. State, 875 So. 2d 579 , 582–83 (Fla. 2004); Padro-Guerrero v. State, 123 So. 3d 670, 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (“As long as the two-year limitation period [of rule 3.8 | 1 | 1 |
Tinsley v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Tinsley v. State, 41 So.3d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Johnson v. State, 7 So.3d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Regan v. State
green
2 sentences2006Regan, 787 So. 2d at 267 ; see also Coppola, 795 So. 2d at 259 (adopting the reasoning of Regan). 2006Regan, 787 So.2d at 267 ; see also Coppola, 795 So.2d at 259 (adopting the reasoning of Regan). | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Johnson v. State
neutral
1 sentence2011See Tinsley v. State, 41 So.3d 334 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Johnson v. State, 7 So.3d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.