6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Skiles v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.green2 sentences1993See Skiles v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 267 So.2d 379, 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 275 So.2d 253 (Fla. 1973). 1991See Skiles v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 267 So.2d 379, 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 275 So.2d 253 (Fla. 1973). | 2 | 2 |
Skiles v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc.green2 sentences1993See Skiles v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 267 So.2d 379, 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 275 So.2d 253 (Fla. 1973). 1991See Skiles v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 267 So.2d 379, 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 275 So.2d 253 (Fla. 1973). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Terzadogreen1 sentence2006See State v. Lampley, 817 So.2d 989, 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ("The test for abandonment is whether a defendant voluntarily discarded, left behind, or otherwise relinquished his interest in the property in question so that he could no longer retain a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to it at the time of the search.") (quoting 14A Fla.Jur.2d Abandoned Property § 633 (2001)); State v. Terzado, 513 So.2d 741, 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ("If Terzado abandoned his car, he lost his reasonable expectation of privacy in it, and may not claim a violation of his fourth amendment rights."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lampleygreen1 sentence2006See State v. Lampley, 817 So.2d 989, 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) ("The test for abandonment is whether a defendant voluntarily discarded, left behind, or otherwise relinquished his interest in the property in question so that he could no longer retain a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to it at the time of the search.") (quoting 14A Fla.Jur.2d Abandoned Property § 633 (2001)); State v. Terzado, 513 So.2d 741, 742 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ("If Terzado abandoned his car, he lost his reasonable expectation of privacy in it, and may not claim a violation of his fourth amendment rights."). | 1 | 1 |
Atwater v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Porter v. State, 788 So.2d 917 , 921 n. 6 (Fla.2001) (claim that trial court considered nonstatutory aggravating circumstance should be brought on direct appeal); see also Atwater v. State, 788 So.2d 223 , 228 n. 5 (Fla.2001). [5] Cumulative Error Finally, having found no individual error in the trial court's rulings, we also find no merit in Branch's claim of cumulative error by the trial court in denying postconviction relief. | 1 | 1 |
Porter v. Stategreen1 sentence2006See Porter v. State, 788 So.2d 917 , 921 n. 6 (Fla.2001) (claim that trial court considered nonstatutory aggravating circumstance should be brought on direct appeal); see also Atwater v. State, 788 So.2d 223 , 228 n. 5 (Fla.2001). [5] Cumulative Error Finally, having found no individual error in the trial court's rulings, we also find no merit in Branch's claim of cumulative error by the trial court in denying postconviction relief. | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. PUB. HEALTH TRUST OF DADE CTY.green1 sentence1991Cf. Taylor v. Public Health Trust of Dade County, 546 So.2d 733, 734 (Fla. 3d DCA) (where juror gave ambiguous answer and no further inquiry was made on voir dire, there was insufficient due diligence shown to warrant new trial), review denied, 557 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1989). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. New York Cotton Exchangegreen2 sentences1972"So close is the connection between the case sought to be stated in the bill and that set up in the counterclaim, that it only needs the failure of the former to establish a foundation for the latter; . .. ." Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. at 610 , 46 S.Ct. at 371 (Emphasis supplied.) Applying these definitions to the case sub judice, it is clear that the present suit is barred as it arose out of the same transaction that was the subject matter of the opposing party's claim due to their logical relationship The opposing party in the prior suit (Stone, the present defendant), claim 1972"So close is the connection between the case sought to be stated in the bill and that set up in the counterclaim, that it only needs the failure of the former to establish a foundation for the latter; . .. ." Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange, 270 U.S. at 610 , 46 S.Ct. at 371 (Emphasis supplied.) Applying these definitions to the case sub judice, it is clear that the present suit is barred as it arose out of the same transaction that was the subject matter of the opposing party's claim due to their logical relationship The opposing party in the prior suit (Stone, the present defendant), claim | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida
green
1 sentence2018This Court stayed Branch’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Allen v. United States
green
1 sentence2018This Court stayed Branch’s appeal pending the disposition of Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Hurst v. Florida
green
1 sentence2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Branch’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Gary Czajkowski v. State of Florida
red
1 sentence2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Branch’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Florida v. Hurst
red
1 sentence2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Branch’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Huff v. State
green
1 sentence2006NOTES [1] Branch's motion alleged: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the guilt phase and violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase and violations of Brady and Giglio ; (3) newly discovered evidence shows that the jury and trial court considered a nonstatutory aggravating circumstance of an improper prior violent felony; (4) counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain an adequate mental h | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
2 sentences2006NOTES [1] Branch's motion alleged: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the guilt phase and violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase and violations of Brady and Giglio ; (3) newly discovered evidence shows that the jury and trial court considered a nonstatutory aggravating circumstance of an improper prior violent felony; (4) counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain an adequate mental h 2006NOTES [1] Branch's motion alleged: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the guilt phase and violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase and violations of Brady and Giglio ; (3) newly discovered evidence shows that the jury and trial court considered a nonstatutory aggravating circumstance of an improper prior violent felony; (4) counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain an adequate mental h | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2006NOTES [1] Branch's motion alleged: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the guilt phase and violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase and violations of Brady and Giglio ; (3) newly discovered evidence shows that the jury and trial court considered a nonstatutory aggravating circumstance of an improper prior violent felony; (4) counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain an adequate mental h 2006NOTES [1] Branch's motion alleged: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the guilt phase and violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase and violations of Brady and Giglio ; (3) newly discovered evidence shows that the jury and trial court considered a nonstatutory aggravating circumstance of an improper prior violent felony; (4) counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain an adequate mental h | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Giglio v. United States
green
2 sentences2006NOTES [1] Branch's motion alleged: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the guilt phase and violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase and violations of Brady and Giglio ; (3) newly discovered evidence shows that the jury and trial court considered a nonstatutory aggravating circumstance of an improper prior violent felony; (4) counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain an adequate mental h 2006NOTES [1] Branch's motion alleged: (1) ineffective assistance of trial counsel at the guilt phase and violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972); (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the penalty phase and violations of Brady and Giglio ; (3) newly discovered evidence shows that the jury and trial court considered a nonstatutory aggravating circumstance of an improper prior violent felony; (4) counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain an adequate mental h | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Payne v. . Hodge
neutral
1 sentence1968The statement taken from this case is as follows: "The other branch of the inquiry has not been very distinctly adjudicated in this state, although the admissibility of entries made under circumstances like those in this case was apparently approved in Payne v. Hodge, 71 N.Y. 598 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.