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 1988–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chillingworth v. Stategreen1 sentence2015First, the motion to disqualify was timely in light of the comments made at the hearing on petitioners’ motion for reconsideration, and/or from the “cumulative effect of events occurring within a short space of time.” Chilling-worth v. State, 846 So.2d 674, 676 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Vann v. American Motorists Insurance Co.green1 sentence2001Co., 627 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (stating that “none of the comments made by defense counsel were so prejudicial or inflammatory as to require mistrial, or a new trial, especially where the witness never answered the question and no evidence on the issue was ever presented to the jury”); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 731 So.2d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“find[ing] that the trial court properly sustained the objections when necessary and properly gave curative instructions when necessary that obviated the harm,” and thus did not abuse its discretion in denying the mot | 1 | 1 |
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gutierrezgreen1 sentence2001Co., 627 So.2d 601, 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (stating that “none of the comments made by defense counsel were so prejudicial or inflammatory as to require mistrial, or a new trial, especially where the witness never answered the question and no evidence on the issue was ever presented to the jury”); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 731 So.2d 151, 152 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“find[ing] that the trial court properly sustained the objections when necessary and properly gave curative instructions when necessary that obviated the harm,” and thus did not abuse its discretion in denying the mot | 1 | 1 |
Borden, Inc. v. Younggreen1 sentence1996The comments made by defense counsel in his closing argument were so inflammatory and offensive that we decline to repeat them here and memorialize them in the annals of reported decisions; they were "so prejudicial as to be incapable of cure by rebuke or retraction...." Borden, Inc. v. Young, 479 So.2d 850, 851 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 488 So.2d 832 (Fla.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Sanchez v. Bengocheagreen1 sentence1993See Sanchez v. Bengochea, 573 So.2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Dixie-Bell Oil Co., Inc. v. Gold, 275 So.2d 19, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). | 1 | 1 |
Venning v. Roegreen1 sentence1993It would be impossible fairly to do so. [1] See Rule 4-3.4, Rules of Professional Conduct; Venning v. Roe, 616 So.2d 604, 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) ("We believe the improper comments made by defense counsel essentially accuse the medical expert of perjury and accuse opposing counsel of unethically committing a fraud upon the court. | 1 | 1 |
Dixie-Bell Oil Company, Inc. v. Goldgreen1 sentence1993See Sanchez v. Bengochea, 573 So.2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Dixie-Bell Oil Co., Inc. v. Gold, 275 So.2d 19, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Collins Fruit Company v. Giglio
green
1 sentence1988Cf. Denny v. State, 404 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (state's responsive argument to defendant's was not beyond the scope of the comments made by the defense because the state's argument pertaining to certain admissions, not specifically mentioned by the defense during its closing argument, was directly related to the asserted defense that the defendant lacked the ability to form the intent to murder); Collins Fruit Co. v. Giglio, 184 So.2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) (trial court erred in disallowing plaintiff's counsel, in response to the concluding arguments of the defense counsel, from referri | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Breedlove v. State
green
1 sentence1988Similarly, in the present case, because the state spoke at length during its initial closing argument regarding defendant's failure to withdraw from the charged conspiracies, defense counsel's reference to Hughes in his summation clearly did not exceed the scope of the prosecutor's arguments, in that such reference was relevant to the defense that he had in fact withdrawn from any such participation. [1] Although the trial court possesses wide discretion in controlling the arguments presented, see Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882 , 103 S.Ct. 184 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1 | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Newlon v. Missouri
green
1 sentence1988Similarly, in the present case, because the state spoke at length during its initial closing argument regarding defendant's failure to withdraw from the charged conspiracies, defense counsel's reference to Hughes in his summation clearly did not exceed the scope of the prosecutor's arguments, in that such reference was relevant to the defense that he had in fact withdrawn from any such participation. [1] Although the trial court possesses wide discretion in controlling the arguments presented, see Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882 , 103 S.Ct. 184 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1 | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Denny v. State
green
1 sentence1988Cf. Denny v. State, 404 So.2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (state's responsive argument to defendant's was not beyond the scope of the comments made by the defense because the state's argument pertaining to certain admissions, not specifically mentioned by the defense during its closing argument, was directly related to the asserted defense that the defendant lacked the ability to form the intent to murder); Collins Fruit Co. v. Giglio, 184 So.2d 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966) (trial court erred in disallowing plaintiff's counsel, in response to the concluding arguments of the defense counsel, from referri | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Tison v. Arizona
green
1 sentence1988Similarly, in the present case, because the state spoke at length during its initial closing argument regarding defendant's failure to withdraw from the charged conspiracies, defense counsel's reference to Hughes in his summation clearly did not exceed the scope of the prosecutor's arguments, in that such reference was relevant to the defense that he had in fact withdrawn from any such participation. [1] Although the trial court possesses wide discretion in controlling the arguments presented, see Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882 , 103 S.Ct. 184 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1 | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Jackson v. Breeland
green
1 sentence1988Similarly, in the present case, because the state spoke at length during its initial closing argument regarding defendant's failure to withdraw from the charged conspiracies, defense counsel's reference to Hughes in his summation clearly did not exceed the scope of the prosecutor's arguments, in that such reference was relevant to the defense that he had in fact withdrawn from any such participation. [1] Although the trial court possesses wide discretion in controlling the arguments presented, see Breedlove v. State, 413 So.2d 1 (Fla.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 882 , 103 S.Ct. 184 , 74 L.Ed.2d 1 | 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.