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.
6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2007Before considering the sufficiency of the warnings in M.A.B.'s case, it is helpful to examine decisions in which other courts have been called upon to consider whether a particular warning was the "fully effective equivalent" of the defendant's "right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation" prescribed by Miranda, 384 U.S. at 471, 476 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . 2007Before considering the sufficiency of the warnings in M.A.B.’s case, it is helpful to examine decisions in which other courts have been called upon to consider whether a particular warning was the “fully effective equivalent” of the defendant’s “right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation” prescribed by Miranda, 384 U.S. at 471, 476 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 . | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roberts v. State
green
2 sentences2008The trial was also prior to the Fourth District's decision in Roberts v. State, 874 So.2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). 2007Thus, in conducting a de novo review of the adequacy of the Miranda warnings administered to M.A.B. in this case, see Roberts, 874 So.2d at 1227 , my task is to determine whether the warnings given reasonably conveyed to M.A.B. his right to have an attorney present during his interrogation. | 2 | 2007–2008 |
Graham v. State
green
1 sentence2008Later, however, in Graham v. State, 974 So.2d 440 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), the Second District distinguished Powell because the police in Graham advised the defendant that he had the right to the presence of an attorney and did not include any timeframe limitation. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2007NOTES [1] Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). [2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [3] We note that on August 21, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court granted review on M.A.B., just as the current opinion was about to issue. 2007NOTES [1] Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). [2] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [3] We note that on August 21, 2007, the Florida Supreme Court granted review on M.A.B., just as the current opinion was about to issue. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA, LLC v. Dupont
green
1 sentence2007We also note that because a majority of this court did not reach a decision on the adequacy of the Miranda warnings in M.A.B., an argument can be made that the supreme court will not have jurisdiction to answer the question we certified to it in that case. [3] We recognize that at least one other district court faced a similar situation with an en banc tie vote and relied on the flexibility inherent in the appellate rules of procedure to address it at the district court level. [4] Either way, because this court was evenly divided in M.A.B., we did not actually resolve the certified question an | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Alvord v. State
green
1 sentence1988In regard to the adequacy of the Miranda warnings given to Caso prior to his questioning, the district court stated that despite Caso's "thoughtful and well-presented arguments," it was bound by stare decisis to follow Alvord v. State, 322 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1975), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 923 , 96 S.Ct. 3234 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1226 (1976). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Alvord v. Florida
green
1 sentence1988In regard to the adequacy of the Miranda warnings given to Caso prior to his questioning, the district court stated that despite Caso's "thoughtful and well-presented arguments," it was bound by stare decisis to follow Alvord v. State, 322 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1975), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 923 , 96 S.Ct. 3234 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1226 (1976). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Geisha House, Inc. v. Cullinane
green
1 sentence1988In regard to the adequacy of the Miranda warnings given to Caso prior to his questioning, the district court stated that despite Caso's "thoughtful and well-presented arguments," it was bound by stare decisis to follow Alvord v. State, 322 So.2d 533 (Fla. 1975), cert. denied, 428 U.S. 923 , 96 S.Ct. 3234 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1226 (1976). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.