6 Florida opinions name it 3 courts 1977–2006 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 |
|---|---|---|
Land v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Courts in Mississippi, New Jersey, Indiana, and Georgia have decided that parents are “parties” to juvenile delinquency proceedings. 10 See D.C.A. v. State, 135 Ga.App. 234 , 217 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1975) (“[T]he exclusion of the child or the child’s parents from a hearing or any part thereof when the issue being heard is whether, because of the purported acts of the child, such child is in need of correction is manifestly an abuse of discretion, for who would, under any circumstances, have a more direct interest in the case?”) (quoting Land v. State, 101 Ga.App. 448 , 114 S.E.2d 165, 166 (I960)) 2006Courts in Mississippi, New Jersey, Indiana, and Georgia have decided that parents are “parties” to juvenile delinquency proceedings. 10 See D.C.A. v. State, 135 Ga.App. 234 , 217 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1975) (“[T]he exclusion of the child or the child’s parents from a hearing or any part thereof when the issue being heard is whether, because of the purported acts of the child, such child is in need of correction is manifestly an abuse of discretion, for who would, under any circumstances, have a more direct interest in the case?”) (quoting Land v. State, 101 Ga.App. 448 , 114 S.E.2d 165, 166 (I960)) | 1 | 1 |
DCA v. State of Ga.green2 sentences2006Courts in Mississippi, New Jersey, Indiana, and Georgia have decided that parents are “parties” to juvenile delinquency proceedings. 10 See D.C.A. v. State, 135 Ga.App. 234 , 217 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1975) (“[T]he exclusion of the child or the child’s parents from a hearing or any part thereof when the issue being heard is whether, because of the purported acts of the child, such child is in need of correction is manifestly an abuse of discretion, for who would, under any circumstances, have a more direct interest in the case?”) (quoting Land v. State, 101 Ga.App. 448 , 114 S.E.2d 165, 166 (I960)) 2006Courts in Mississippi, New Jersey, Indiana, and Georgia have decided that parents are “parties” to juvenile delinquency proceedings. 10 See D.C.A. v. State, 135 Ga.App. 234 , 217 S.E.2d 470, 472 (1975) (“[T]he exclusion of the child or the child’s parents from a hearing or any part thereof when the issue being heard is whether, because of the purported acts of the child, such child is in need of correction is manifestly an abuse of discretion, for who would, under any circumstances, have a more direct interest in the case?”) (quoting Land v. State, 101 Ga.App. 448 , 114 S.E.2d 165, 166 (I960)) | 1 | 1 |
McLean v. Stategreen1 sentence1977See, e.g., L.C.L. v. State, 319 So.2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976), wherein this court reversed a trial judge's transfer of a juvenile case to the criminal division of the circuit court because of the court's failure to notify the juvenile's parents of the waiver hearing held under Section 39.09(2), Florida Statutes. | 1 | 1 |
Alexander v. Stategreen1 sentence1977See also this court's recent opinion in Alexander v. State, 341 So.2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), where we vacated a judgment and sentence for robbery because the record indicated no notice of the charge was furnished to the parent or guardian of the juvenile, nor was there evidence of actual notice. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Hooligan's Pub & Oyster Bar, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2001Id. at 598 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Powell
green
1 sentence2001In our opinion in Powell , this Court began by explaining the legitimate state interest in obtaining suitable corneal tissue that can restore sight to the functionally blind, which is especially important for the elderly and newborns. 497 So.2d at 1190-91 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Sketo v. Brown
green
1 sentence1995Having previously determined in Sketo, supra at p. 382 that section 752.01 is not facially unconstitutional in providing for grandparent visitation where death has intruded upon the family unit, it remains for us to decide whether the subsequent addition of subsection (1)(e) renders section 752.01 constitutionally infirm. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Roper v. Roper
green
1 sentence1981Roper v. Roper, 336 So.2d 654 (4 DCA Fla.1976). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.