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 2 courts 1978–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kopsho v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Matarranz, 133 So.3d at 477-81, 485-88 (juror repeatedly indicated that she harbored a bias against criminal defendants because she,had previously been the victim of a burglary); Kop-sho, 959 So.2d at 170-72 (juror believed that defendant should testify on his own behalf and expressed disagreement with the right to silence); Overton v. State, 801 So.2d 877, 890-93 (Fla. 2001) (finding error in denying cause challenge to one juror who emphatically believed that the defendant’s failure to testify indicated guilt); see also Welch v. State, 189 So.3d 296, 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that j 2017See Matarranz, 133 So. 3d at 477-81, 485-88 (juror repeatedly indicated that she harbored a bias against criminal defendants because she had previously been the victim of a burglary); Kopsho, 959 So. 2d at 170-72 (juror believed that defendant should testify on his own behalf and expressed disagreement with the right to - 29 - silence); Overton v. State, 801 So. 2d 877, 890-93 (Fla. 2001) (finding error in denying cause challenge to one juror who emphatically believed that the defendant’s failure to testify indicated guilt); see also Welch v. State, 189 So. 3d 296, 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (hold | 1 | 1 |
Overton v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Matarranz, 133 So.3d at 477-81, 485-88 (juror repeatedly indicated that she harbored a bias against criminal defendants because she,had previously been the victim of a burglary); Kop-sho, 959 So.2d at 170-72 (juror believed that defendant should testify on his own behalf and expressed disagreement with the right to silence); Overton v. State, 801 So.2d 877, 890-93 (Fla. 2001) (finding error in denying cause challenge to one juror who emphatically believed that the defendant’s failure to testify indicated guilt); see also Welch v. State, 189 So.3d 296, 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that j 2017See Matarranz, 133 So. 3d at 477-81, 485-88 (juror repeatedly indicated that she harbored a bias against criminal defendants because she had previously been the victim of a burglary); Kopsho, 959 So. 2d at 170-72 (juror believed that defendant should testify on his own behalf and expressed disagreement with the right to - 29 - silence); Overton v. State, 801 So. 2d 877, 890-93 (Fla. 2001) (finding error in denying cause challenge to one juror who emphatically believed that the defendant’s failure to testify indicated guilt); see also Welch v. State, 189 So. 3d 296, 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (hold | 1 | 1 |
Welch v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Matarranz, 133 So.3d at 477-81, 485-88 (juror repeatedly indicated that she harbored a bias against criminal defendants because she,had previously been the victim of a burglary); Kop-sho, 959 So.2d at 170-72 (juror believed that defendant should testify on his own behalf and expressed disagreement with the right to silence); Overton v. State, 801 So.2d 877, 890-93 (Fla. 2001) (finding error in denying cause challenge to one juror who emphatically believed that the defendant’s failure to testify indicated guilt); see also Welch v. State, 189 So.3d 296, 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that j 2017See Matarranz, 133 So. 3d at 477-81, 485-88 (juror repeatedly indicated that she harbored a bias against criminal defendants because she had previously been the victim of a burglary); Kopsho, 959 So. 2d at 170-72 (juror believed that defendant should testify on his own behalf and expressed disagreement with the right to - 29 - silence); Overton v. State, 801 So. 2d 877, 890-93 (Fla. 2001) (finding error in denying cause challenge to one juror who emphatically believed that the defendant’s failure to testify indicated guilt); see also Welch v. State, 189 So. 3d 296, 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (hold | 1 | 1 |
Bryant v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Id. at 894 (juror indicated that he was inclined to impose death sentences for defendants convicted of first-degree murder, but also explained that he would follow the court’s instructions and could entertain a life sentence); Bryant v. State, 656 So.2d 426, 428 (Fla. 1995) (five jurors initially “expressed strong support of the death penalty,” but later indicated that they would follow the instructions and weigh the aggravation and mitigation). 2017Id. at 894 (juror indicated that he was inclined to impose death sentences for defendants convicted of first-degree murder, but also explained that he would follow the court’s instructions and could entertain a life sentence); Bryant v. State, 656 So. 2d 426, 428 (Fla. 1995) (five jurors initially “expressed strong support of the death penalty,” but later indicated that they would follow the instructions and weigh the aggravation and mitigation). | 1 | 1 |
Wainwright v. Wittgreen1 sentence2017Id. at 894 (juror indicated that he was inclined to impose death sentences for defendants convicted of first-degree murder, but also explained that he would follow the court’s instructions and could entertain a life sentence); Bryant v. State, 656 So.2d 426, 428 (Fla. 1995) (five jurors initially “expressed strong support of the death penalty,” but later indicated that they would follow the instructions and weigh the aggravation and mitigation). | 1 | 1 |
Matarranz v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Matarranz, 133 So.3d at 477-81, 485-88 (juror repeatedly indicated that she harbored a bias against criminal defendants because she,had previously been the victim of a burglary); Kop-sho, 959 So.2d at 170-72 (juror believed that defendant should testify on his own behalf and expressed disagreement with the right to silence); Overton v. State, 801 So.2d 877, 890-93 (Fla. 2001) (finding error in denying cause challenge to one juror who emphatically believed that the defendant’s failure to testify indicated guilt); see also Welch v. State, 189 So.3d 296, 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that j 2017See Matarranz, 133 So. 3d at 477-81, 485-88 (juror repeatedly indicated that she harbored a bias against criminal defendants because she had previously been the victim of a burglary); Kopsho, 959 So. 2d at 170-72 (juror believed that defendant should testify on his own behalf and expressed disagreement with the right to - 29 - silence); Overton v. State, 801 So. 2d 877, 890-93 (Fla. 2001) (finding error in denying cause challenge to one juror who emphatically believed that the defendant’s failure to testify indicated guilt); see also Welch v. State, 189 So. 3d 296, 301 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (hold | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See also Brown v. State, 455 So.2d 635, 635-36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (holding that when the trial court has found a violation Of probation by the greater weight of the evidence, “the decision as to whether qr not to revoke the [defendant’s] probation is within the discretion of the trial judge” (citing Harris v. State, 453 So.2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984))). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Stategreen1 sentence2016See also Brown v. State, 455 So.2d 635, 635-36 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (holding that when the trial court has found a violation Of probation by the greater weight of the evidence, “the decision as to whether qr not to revoke the [defendant’s] probation is within the discretion of the trial judge” (citing Harris v. State, 453 So.2d 228 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984))). | 1 | 1 |
The Florida Bar v. Thomasgreen1 sentence2000See Florida Bar v. Thomas, 698 So.2d 530 (Fla.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Kratz v. Newsomgreen1 sentence1978See Orange City Water Co. v. Town of Orange City, 255 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1971); State v. Newell, 85 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1956); Brevard County v. Board of Public Instruction, 159 Fla. 869 , 33 So.2d 54 (1947); Realty Bond and Share Co. v. Englar, 104 Fla. 329 , 143 So. 152 (1932). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
The Florida Bar v. Travis
green
1 sentence2004In Travis , this Court did note, "In cases involving isolated incidents of misappropriation, this Court has found the presumption of disbarment rebutted when mitigation such as cooperation, restitution, and the absence of a past disciplinary record exist." Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Avery v. Midland County
green
2 sentences1987E.g., Hadley v. Junior College District, 397 U.S. 50 , 90 S.Ct. 791 , 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970) (trustees of junior college district); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 , 89 S.Ct. 1886 , 23 L.Ed. 2d 583 (1969) (school district officials); Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 , 88 S.Ct. 1114 , 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968) (county commissioners). 1987E.g., Hadley v. Junior College District, 397 U.S. 50 , 90 S.Ct. 791 , 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970) (trustees of junior college district); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 , 89 S.Ct. 1886 , 23 L.Ed. 2d 583 (1969) (school district officials); Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 , 88 S.Ct. 1114 , 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968) (county commissioners). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15
green
2 sentences1987E.g., Hadley v. Junior College District, 397 U.S. 50 , 90 S.Ct. 791 , 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970) (trustees of junior college district); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 , 89 S.Ct. 1886 , 23 L.Ed. 2d 583 (1969) (school district officials); Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 , 88 S.Ct. 1114 , 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968) (county commissioners). 1987E.g., Hadley v. Junior College District, 397 U.S. 50 , 90 S.Ct. 791 , 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970) (trustees of junior college district); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 , 89 S.Ct. 1886 , 23 L.Ed. 2d 583 (1969) (school district officials); Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 , 88 S.Ct. 1114 , 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968) (county commissioners). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Hadley v. Junior College District of Metropolitan Kansas City
green
2 sentences1987E.g., Hadley v. Junior College District, 397 U.S. 50 , 90 S.Ct. 791 , 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970) (trustees of junior college district); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 , 89 S.Ct. 1886 , 23 L.Ed. 2d 583 (1969) (school district officials); Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 , 88 S.Ct. 1114 , 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968) (county commissioners). 1987E.g., Hadley v. Junior College District, 397 U.S. 50 , 90 S.Ct. 791 , 25 L.Ed.2d 45 (1970) (trustees of junior college district); Kramer v. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 , 89 S.Ct. 1886 , 23 L.Ed. 2d 583 (1969) (school district officials); Avery v. Midland County, 390 U.S. 474 , 88 S.Ct. 1114 , 20 L.Ed.2d 45 (1968) (county commissioners). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Realty Bond & Share Co. v. Englar
green
2 sentences1978See Orange City Water Co. v. Town of Orange City, 255 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1971); State v. Newell, 85 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1956); Brevard County v. Board of Public Instruction, 159 Fla. 869 , 33 So.2d 54 (1947); Realty Bond and Share Co. v. Englar, 104 Fla. 329 , 143 So. 152 (1932). 1978See Orange City Water Co. v. Town of Orange City, 255 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1971); State v. Newell, 85 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1956); Brevard County v. Board of Public Instruction, 159 Fla. 869 , 33 So.2d 54 (1947); Realty Bond and Share Co. v. Englar, 104 Fla. 329 , 143 So. 152 (1932). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Brevard County v. Board of Public Instruction
green
2 sentences1978See Orange City Water Co. v. Town of Orange City, 255 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1971); State v. Newell, 85 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1956); Brevard County v. Board of Public Instruction, 159 Fla. 869 , 33 So.2d 54 (1947); Realty Bond and Share Co. v. Englar, 104 Fla. 329 , 143 So. 152 (1932). 1978See Orange City Water Co. v. Town of Orange City, 255 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1971); State v. Newell, 85 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1956); Brevard County v. Board of Public Instruction, 159 Fla. 869 , 33 So.2d 54 (1947); Realty Bond and Share Co. v. Englar, 104 Fla. 329 , 143 So. 152 (1932). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State Ex Rel. Limpus v. Newell
green
1 sentence1978See Orange City Water Co. v. Town of Orange City, 255 So.2d 257 (Fla. 1971); State v. Newell, 85 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1956); Brevard County v. Board of Public Instruction, 159 Fla. 869 , 33 So.2d 54 (1947); Realty Bond and Share Co. v. Englar, 104 Fla. 329 , 143 So. 152 (1932). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.