6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hudson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017See Hudson, 522 U.S. at 99 , 118 S.Ct. at 493 (classifying Kennedy factors as “useful guideposts”); Ward, 448 U.S. at 249, 100 S.Ct. 2636 (describing Kennedy factors as “helpful,” but “neither exhaustive nor dispositive”). 2017See Hudson, 522 U.S. at 99 , 118 S.Ct. at 493 (classifying Kennedy factors as “useful guideposts”); Ward, 448 U.S. at 249, 100 S.Ct. 2636 (describing Kennedy factors as “helpful,” but “neither exhaustive nor dispositive”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pittsgreen1 sentence2010Addressing the exact issue now before us, Justice Kennedy stated that `it would be extravagant to treat the presence of one statement that cannot be admitted under Miranda as sufficient reason to prohibit subsequent statements preceded by a proper warning.'" (quoting Seibert, 542 U.S. at 620 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment))); Pitts, 936 So.2d at 1136 ("[T]he holding of Seibert should be viewed as the position taken by Justice Kennedy, which articulates the `narrowest grounds' for the judgment of the Court."). | 1 | 1 |
Haley v. Haleygreen1 sentence2010Addressing the exact issue now before us, Justice Kennedy stated that ‘it would be extravagant to treat the presence of one statement that cannot be admitted under Miranda as sufficient reason to prohibit subsequent statements preceded by a proper warning.’ ” (quoting Seibert, 542 U.S. at 620, 124 S.Ct. 2601 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment))); Pitts, 936 So.2d at 1136 (“[T]he holding of Seibert should be viewed as the position taken by Justice Kennedy, which articulates the ‘narrowest grounds’ for the judgment of the Court.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lebrongreen1 sentence2010Davis, 990 So.2d at 465 -66 (quoting and applying Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Seibert and recognizing that "Justice Kennedy stated that he would apply a narrower test than the plurality"); Tengbergen, 9 So.3d at 735 ("Florida courts have heretofore applied Justice Kennedy's rule [in Seibert ], as it represents the narrower view."); Jump, 983 So.2d at 728 (applying Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Seibert not the plurality opinionbecause, "[a]s our sister courts have recognized, Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion in Seibert offers the narrowest grounds"); Lebron, 979 So.2d at 1096 ("Ju | 1 | 1 |
Jump v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Davis, 990 So.2d at 465 -66 (quoting and applying Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Seibert and recognizing that "Justice Kennedy stated that he would apply a narrower test than the plurality"); Tengbergen, 9 So.3d at 735 ("Florida courts have heretofore applied Justice Kennedy's rule [in Seibert ], as it represents the narrower view."); Jump, 983 So.2d at 728 (applying Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Seibert not the plurality opinionbecause, "[a]s our sister courts have recognized, Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion in Seibert offers the narrowest grounds"); Lebron, 979 So.2d at 1096 ("Ju | 1 | 1 |
Tengbergen v. Stategreen1 sentence2010Davis, 990 So.2d at 465 -66 (quoting and applying Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Seibert and recognizing that "Justice Kennedy stated that he would apply a narrower test than the plurality"); Tengbergen, 9 So.3d at 735 ("Florida courts have heretofore applied Justice Kennedy's rule [in Seibert ], as it represents the narrower view."); Jump, 983 So.2d at 728 (applying Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Seibert not the plurality opinionbecause, "[a]s our sister courts have recognized, Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion in Seibert offers the narrowest grounds"); Lebron, 979 So.2d at 1096 ("Ju | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Eric Kevin Mashburngreen2 sentences2010See Mashburn, 406 F.3d at 309 (“Here, the district court found no evidence that the agents’ failure to convey Miranda warnings to Mashburn was deliberate or intentional. 2010See Mashburn, 406 F.3d at 309 ("Here, the district court found no evidence that the agents' failure to convey Miranda warnings to Mashburn was deliberate or intentional. | 1 | 1 |
Ruiz v. Stategreen1 sentence2001See Ruiz, 743 So.2d at 10 n. 11; Keen, 504 So.2d at 402 n. 5. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ewing v. California
green
2 sentences2005The four dissenters protested that, even applying Justice Kennedy's framework, Ewing "is a `rare' case one in which a court can say with reasonable confidence that the punishment is `grossly disproportionate' to the crime." Id. at 37 , 123 S.Ct. 1179 (Breyer, J., dissenting). 2005The four dissenters protested that, even applying Justice Kennedy's framework, Ewing "is a `rare' case one in which a court can say with reasonable confidence that the punishment is `grossly disproportionate' to the crime." Id. at 37 , 123 S.Ct. 1179 (Breyer, J., dissenting). | 2 | 2005–2006 |
United States v. Ursery
green
1 sentence2017It is at this analytical stage that the seven Kennedy factors come into play.” Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez
green
2 sentences2017The last two Kennedy factors, on the other hand, probably weigh against the appellants in that the disciplinary sanctions could be regarded as “rationally ... connected” to an alternative, nonpunitive purpose—namely, maintaining institutional order—-without “appearing] excessive” in relation to that purpose. 372 U.S. at 168-69 , 83 S.Ct. 554 . 2017The last two Kennedy factors, on the other hand, probably weigh against the appellants in that the disciplinary sanctions could be regarded as “rationally ... connected” to an alternative, nonpunitive purpose—namely, maintaining institutional order—-without “appearing] excessive” in relation to that purpose. 372 U.S. at 168-69 , 83 S.Ct. 554 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Ward
green
1 sentence2017See Hudson, 522 U.S. at 99 , 118 S.Ct. at 493 (classifying Kennedy factors as “useful guideposts”); Ward, 448 U.S. at 249, 100 S.Ct. 2636 (describing Kennedy factors as “helpful,” but “neither exhaustive nor dispositive”). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Missouri v. Seibert
green
2 sentences2010Addressing the exact issue now before us, Justice Kennedy stated that `it would be extravagant to treat the presence of one statement that cannot be admitted under Miranda as sufficient reason to prohibit subsequent statements preceded by a proper warning.'" (quoting Seibert, 542 U.S. at 620 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment))); Pitts, 936 So.2d at 1136 ("[T]he holding of Seibert should be viewed as the position taken by Justice Kennedy, which articulates the `narrowest grounds' for the judgment of the Court."). 2010Addressing the exact issue now before us, Justice Kennedy stated that `it would be extravagant to treat the presence of one statement that cannot be admitted under Miranda as sufficient reason to prohibit subsequent statements preceded by a proper warning.'" (quoting Seibert, 542 U.S. at 620 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 (Kennedy, J., concurring in the judgment))); Pitts, 936 So.2d at 1136 ("[T]he holding of Seibert should be viewed as the position taken by Justice Kennedy, which articulates the `narrowest grounds' for the judgment of the Court."). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Davis v. State
green
1 sentence2010Davis, 990 So.2d at 465 -66 (quoting and applying Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Seibert and recognizing that "Justice Kennedy stated that he would apply a narrower test than the plurality"); Tengbergen, 9 So.3d at 735 ("Florida courts have heretofore applied Justice Kennedy's rule [in Seibert ], as it represents the narrower view."); Jump, 983 So.2d at 728 (applying Justice Kennedy's concurrence in Seibert not the plurality opinionbecause, "[a]s our sister courts have recognized, Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion in Seibert offers the narrowest grounds"); Lebron, 979 So.2d at 1096 ("Ju | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Marks v. United States
green
2 sentences2009“When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the ‘holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.’ ” Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 , 193, 97 S.Ct. 990 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977) (citation omitted). 2009“When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the ‘holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.’ ” Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 , 193, 97 S.Ct. 990 , 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Keen v. State
green
1 sentence2001See Ruiz, 743 So.2d at 10 n. 11; Keen, 504 So.2d at 402 n. 5. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.