6 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1937–2009 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 |
|---|---|---|
Young v. Stategreen1 sentence1999In Young v. State, 699 So.2d 624, 626 (Fla.1997), the supreme court, by a 4-3 vote, found that the statutory scheme set forth by the legislature in sections 775.084 and 775.08401, envisions a system by which only the prosecutor can initiate these proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Amos v. Chapman
neutral
2 sentences1962Amos v. Chapman, 108 Fla. 360 , 146 So. 98 ; State ex rel. 1962Amos v. Chapman, 108 Fla. 360 , 146 So. 98 ; State ex rel. | 2 | 1937–1962 |
Dell'Orfano v. State
green
1 sentence2009Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.140(n) entitles a criminal defendant to a statement of particulars “when the indictment or information on which the defendant is to be tried fails to inform the defendant of the particulars of the offense sufficiently to enable the defendant to prepare a defense.” Rule 3.140(n) provides that “[t]he statement of particulars shall specify as definitely as possible the place, date, and all other material facts of the crime charged that are specifically requested and are known to the prosecuting attorney.” The Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in Dell’Orfano v. S | 1 | 2009–2009 |
McAden v. State
green
2 sentences1959The respondent herein cites McAden v. State, 155 Fla. 523 , 21 So.2d 33, 35 , as controlling on the issue in this case. 1959The respondent herein cites McAden v. State, 155 Fla. 523 , 21 So.2d 33, 35 , as controlling on the issue in this case. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
People v. . Stedeker
green
1 sentence1940Before the simplified form of indictment and its supporting bill of particulars were authorized by the 1929 amendment the court could, in its discretion, require a bill of particulars if it appeared reasonably necessary to enable a defendant to prepare his defense (People v. Stedeker, 175 N. Y. 57 ), and it would seem that the court still has such power. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
People v. Gilbert
neutral
1 sentence1940In People v. Gilbert ( 96 Misc. 660 ; 118 id. 825) the court required the People to state the particular date on which the offense was committed but declined to require the People to disclose the place of the commission of the alleged offense, or the time and place of birth of the prosecutrix, holding that the latter were matters of evidence and not of pleading. | 1 | 1940–1940 |
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.