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 1 courts 1980–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Collins v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Collins v. State, 680 So.2d 458, 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). 2000See id. | 2 | 2 |
BLACKHAWK HEAT. & P. CO., INC. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp.green1 sentence2018Corp., 328 So. 2d 825, 827 (Fla. 1975) (noting that trial courts lack authority to deviate from an appellate court’s mandate); Ketcher v. Ketcher, 198 So. 3d 1061, 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (“Where, as here, the final judgment is reversed and remanded with specific instructions, the lower court has authority to conduct further proceedings . . . but the court cannot exceed the specific bounds of that instruction.”). | 1 | 1 |
Ketcher v. Ketchergreen1 sentence2018Corp., 328 So. 2d 825, 827 (Fla. 1975) (noting that trial courts lack authority to deviate from an appellate court’s mandate); Ketcher v. Ketcher, 198 So. 3d 1061, 1063 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (“Where, as here, the final judgment is reversed and remanded with specific instructions, the lower court has authority to conduct further proceedings . . . but the court cannot exceed the specific bounds of that instruction.”). | 1 | 1 |
Cone v. Conegreen1 sentence2016See Cone v. Cone, 68 So.2d 886, 887 (Fla.1953) (“[A] trial court is without authority to alter or evade the mandate of an appellate court absent permission to do so.”); Basic Energy Corp. v. Hamilton Cty., 667 So.2d 249, 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“A trial court does not have discretionary power to alter or modify the mandate of an appellate court in any way, shape or form- — ”).- Where, as here, the final judgment is reversed and remanded with specific instructions, the-, lower court has authority to conduct further proceedings. in conformity with the instructions but the court cannot exceed th | 1 | 1 |
Basic Energy Corp. v. Hamilton Countygreen1 sentence2016See Cone v. Cone, 68 So.2d 886, 887 (Fla.1953) (“[A] trial court is without authority to alter or evade the mandate of an appellate court absent permission to do so.”); Basic Energy Corp. v. Hamilton Cty., 667 So.2d 249, 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (“A trial court does not have discretionary power to alter or modify the mandate of an appellate court in any way, shape or form- — ”).- Where, as here, the final judgment is reversed and remanded with specific instructions, the-, lower court has authority to conduct further proceedings. in conformity with the instructions but the court cannot exceed th | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wolfe v. Nazaire
green
1 sentence2016“Where, however, the remand instruction is specific, it is improper to exceed the bounds of that instruction.” Wolfe, 758 So.2d at 733 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Lewis v. Casey
green
2 sentences2004Later, in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), the Supreme Court clarified its holding in Bounds , stating that " Bounds did not create an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance," and that an inmate alleging a Bounds violation must show actual injury by demonstrating "that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal *851 claim." Id. at 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174 . 2004Later, in Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 , 116 S.Ct. 2174 , 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996), the Supreme Court clarified its holding in Bounds , stating that " Bounds did not create an abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance," and that an inmate alleging a Bounds violation must show actual injury by demonstrating "that the alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal *851 claim." Id. at 351, 116 S.Ct. 2174 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Couch v. United States
green
2 sentences1980To tie the privilege against self-incrimination to a concept of ownership would be to draw a meaningless line. 409 U.S. at 328-331 , 93 S.Ct. at 616-617 . 1980To tie the privilege against self-incrimination to a concept of ownership would be to draw a meaningless line. 409 U.S. at 328-331 , 93 S.Ct. at 616-617 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.