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 2000–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dupree v. Stategreen1 sentence2018See Dupree v. State, 705 So. 2d 90, 93 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (en banc) (“Generally, on a motion for judgment of acquittal, the court should not grant the motion unless, viewed in a light most favorable to the state, the evidence does not establish the prima facie case of guilt.”). | 1 | 1 |
Ellis v. FLORIDA PAROLE COM'Ngreen1 sentence2006The petitioner misplaces his reliance on the materially distinguishable holding in Ellis v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 911 So.2d 831, 832-33 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), in which the Commission improperly rejected the hearing officer's factual determination that Ellis' violation was not willful (which was supported by competent substantial evidence) and made its own determination that Ellis had acted willfully and, thus, had violated conditional release. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See generally Moore v. State, 741 So.2d 577, 578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that burden is on trial court summarily denying facially sufficient motion to attach record establishing why defendant is not entitled to relief). | 1 | 1 |
STATE, DEPT. OF HWY. SAFETY v. DeShonggreen1 sentence2000State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. DeShong, 603 So.2d 1349, 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); see also State v. Davidson, 744 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(quoting the language from DeShong ). 1 At the hearings held on Ellis’ motion to suppress, two witnesses were called: John Apell, a Ft. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Davidsongreen1 sentence2000State, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. DeShong, 603 So.2d 1349, 1352 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); see also State v. Davidson, 744 So.2d 1180 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)(quoting the language from DeShong ). 1 At the hearings held on Ellis’ motion to suppress, two witnesses were called: John Apell, a Ft. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stanfield v. Salvation Army
green
1 sentence2015Stem-field 695 So.2d at 803 ..,. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
McBride v. State
green
1 sentence2004The court concluded that the claim raised in the motion—that the consecutive habitual offender sentences imposed for the three crimes were illegal—was cognizable as an "illegal sentence" under rule 3.800(a) and that the motion was not barred as successive based upon this court's decision in McBride v. State, 810 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). [1] On remand, the court decided that the consecutive sentences were illegal and Ellis had to be resentenced. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.