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 2001–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clements v. Stategreen2 sentences2002We agree with the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Clements v. State, 742 So.2d 338, 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), that a separate Waller inquiry is not required when the trial court follows section 918.16 to achieve a partial closing, citing Douglas v. Wainwright, 739 F.2d 531 (11th Cir. 1984). 2002We agree with the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Clements v. State, 742 So.2d 338, 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), that a separate Waller inquiry is not required when the trial court follows section 918.16 to achieve a partial closing, citing Douglas v. Wainwright, 739 F.2d 531 (11th Cir. 1984). | 2 | 2 |
Waller v. Georgiagreen2 sentences2021See Kovaleski v. State, 103 So. 3d 859, 861 (Fla. 2012) (holding that partial courtroom closure pursuant to section 918.16(2), Fla. Stat., complied with the Waller test) (citing Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984)). 2021See Kovaleski v. State, 103 So. 3d 859, 861 (Fla. 2012) (holding that partial courtroom closure pursuant to section 918.16(2), Fla. Stat., complied with the Waller test) (citing Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984)). | 1 | 3 |
Kovaleski v. Stategreen2 sentences2021See Kovaleski v. State, 103 So. 3d 859, 861 (Fla. 2012) (holding that partial courtroom closure pursuant to section 918.16(2), Fla. Stat., complied with the Waller test) (citing Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984)). 2021See Kovaleski v. State, 103 So. 3d 859, 861 (Fla. 2012) (holding that partial courtroom closure pursuant to section 918.16(2), Fla. Stat., complied with the Waller test) (citing Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 48 , 104 S.Ct. 2210 , 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984)). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Klinegreen2 sentences2012See United States v. Galloway, 937 F.2d 542, 546 (10th Cir.1991) (“recognizing] that a different standard applies where the courtroom is only partially closed” but holding that “[nevertheless, the trial court must make sufficient findings to allow the reviewing court to determine whether the partial closure was proper”); Cohen, 921 N.E.2d at 922-23 (“[E]ven in a partial closure context, the remaining Waller factors must be satisfied-Closure by policy runs counter to the requirement that a court make a case-specific determination before a closure of any part of a criminal proceeding constitutio 2012See United States v. Galloway, 937 F.2d 542, 546 (10th Cir.1991) (“recognizing] that a different standard applies where the courtroom is only partially closed” but holding that “[nevertheless, the trial court must make sufficient findings to allow the reviewing court to determine whether the partial closure was proper”); Cohen, 921 N.E.2d at 922-23 (“[E]ven in a partial closure context, the remaining Waller factors must be satisfied-Closure by policy runs counter to the requirement that a court make a case-specific determination before a closure of any part of a criminal proceeding constitutio | 1 | 1 |
United States v. George Don Galloway, A/K/A Saul D. Davisgreen2 sentences2012See United States v. Galloway, 937 F.2d 542, 546 (10th Cir.1991) (“recognizing] that a different standard applies where the courtroom is only partially closed” but holding that “[nevertheless, the trial court must make sufficient findings to allow the reviewing court to determine whether the partial closure was proper”); Cohen, 921 N.E.2d at 922-23 (“[E]ven in a partial closure context, the remaining Waller factors must be satisfied-Closure by policy runs counter to the requirement that a court make a case-specific determination before a closure of any part of a criminal proceeding constitutio 2012See United States v. Galloway, 937 F.2d 542, 546 (10th Cir.1991) (“recognizing] that a different standard applies where the courtroom is only partially closed” but holding that “[nevertheless, the trial court must make sufficient findings to allow the reviewing court to determine whether the partial closure was proper”); Cohen, 921 N.E.2d at 922-23 (“[E]ven in a partial closure context, the remaining Waller factors must be satisfied-Closure by policy runs counter to the requirement that a court make a case-specific determination before a closure of any part of a criminal proceeding constitutio | 1 | 1 |
Whitson v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Contra Whitson v. State, 791 So.2d 544, 547-48 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(stating that the Waller analysis for a partial closing cannot be performed by reliance on section 918.16). 2002Contra Whitson v. State, 791 So.2d 544, 547-48 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)(stating that the Waller analysis for a partial closing cannot be performed by reliance on section 918.16). | 1 | 1 |
Judd v. Haleygreen1 sentence2002See also Judd v. Haley, 250 F.3d 1308 , 1315 (11th Cir.2001)("[I]n the event of a partial closure, a court need merely find a "substantial" reason for the partial closure, and need not satisfy the elements of the more rigorous Waller test."). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Douglas v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences2002We agree with the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Clements v. State, 742 So.2d 338, 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), that a separate Waller inquiry is not required when the trial court follows section 918.16 to achieve a partial closing, citing Douglas v. Wainwright, 739 F.2d 531 (11th Cir. 1984). 2002We agree with the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Clements v. State, 742 So.2d 338, 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), that a separate Waller inquiry is not required when the trial court follows section 918.16 to achieve a partial closing, citing Douglas v. Wainwright, 739 F.2d 531 (11th Cir. 1984). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Guerra v. City of Miami Beach
neutral
2 sentences2002In Clements v. State, 742 So.2d 338, 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), rev. dismissed as improvidently granted, 782 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2001), the court held that closure pursuant to section 918.16, which exempts from exclusion certain members of the public, particularly news reporters, was a partial closure of a trial and the four-factor Waller inquiry was unnecessary. 2002In Clements v. State, 742 So.2d 338, 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), rev. dismissed as improvidently granted, 782 So.2d 868 (Fla. 2001), the court held that closure pursuant to section 918.16, which exempts from exclusion certain members of the public, particularly news reporters, was a partial closure of a trial and the four-factor Waller inquiry was unnecessary. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Pritchett v. State
green
2 sentences2001We observe that in this district Pritchett requires a Waller inquiry regardless of "whether the closure is total or partial." 566 So.2d at 7 . 2001We observe that in this district Pritchett requires a Waller inquiry regardless of "whether the closure is total or partial." 566 So.2d at 7 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.