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 2001–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. Lockhartgreen2 sentences2018See Hill, 474 U.S. at 59 (“[W]here the alleged error of counsel is a failure to advise the defendant of a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the 1 In Pryear, we noted that the current version of the DUI manslaughter statute contains an even lower threshold for establishing causation than the version of the statute interpreted in Magaw and Hubbard. 2011In Hill , the Court explained: “[W]here the alleged error of counsel is a failure to advise the defendant of a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the 'prejudice’ inquiry will depend largely on whether the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial.” 474 U.S. at 59 , 106 S.Ct. 366 . | 2 | 5 |
Odom v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Odom v. State, 782 So.2d 510, 512 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (citing Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 59 , 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985) ("where the alleged error of counsel is a failure to advise of a potential affirmative defense to the crime charged, the resolution of the prejudice inquiry will depend largely on whether *307 the affirmative defense likely would have succeeded at trial")). | 1 | 1 |
Jackie Evans v. Leo Meyer, Warden, Logan Correctional Centergreen1 sentence2004See, e.g., Evans v. Meyer, 742 F.2d 371, 375 (C.A.7 1984) ("It is inconceivable to us ... that [the defendant] would have gone to trial on a defense of intoxication, or that if he had done so he either would have been acquitted or, if convicted, would nevertheless have been given a shorter sentence than he actually received"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wetherell v. Evarts
neutral
1 sentence2016Co. v. Camp, 64 Tex. 521 (1885); Cox v. Reinhardt, 41 Tex. 591 (1874); Moreland v. Atchison, 24 Tex. 164 (1859); Bradford v. Hamilton, 7 Tex. 55 (1851); Linn v. Scott, 3 Tex. 67 (1848); Wetherell v. Evarts, 17 Vt. 219 (1845); Turner v. Pierce, 31 Wis. 342 (1872). - 12 - foreclosure lawsuit; rather, a prior plaintiff's lack of standing raised a potential affirmative defense to challenge the strength of the foreclosing plaintiff's claim: [T]he ownership or title can be inquired into, only for the purpose of letting in any defense or set-off the maker would have had as against a former holder (wh | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Turner v. Pierce
neutral
2 sentences2016Co. v. Camp, 64 Tex. 521 (1885); Cox v. Reinhardt, 41 Tex. 591 (1874); Moreland v. Atchison, 24 Tex. 164 (1859); Bradford v. Hamilton, 7 Tex. 55 (1851); Linn v. Scott, 3 Tex. 67 (1848); Wetherell v. Evarts, 17 Vt. 219 (1845); Turner v. Pierce, 31 Wis. 342 (1872). - 12 - foreclosure lawsuit; rather, a prior plaintiff's lack of standing raised a potential affirmative defense to challenge the strength of the foreclosing plaintiff's claim: [T]he ownership or title can be inquired into, only for the purpose of letting in any defense or set-off the maker would have had as against a former holder (wh 2016Co. v. Camp, 64 Tex. 521 (1885); Cox v. Reinhardt, 41 Tex. 591 (1874); Moreland v. Atchison, 24 Tex. 164 (1859); Bradford v. Hamilton, 7 Tex. 55 (1851); Linn v. Scott, 3 Tex. 67 (1848); Wetherell v. Evarts, 17 Vt. 219 (1845); Turner v. Pierce, 31 Wis. 342 (1872). - 12 - foreclosure lawsuit; rather, a prior plaintiff's lack of standing raised a potential affirmative defense to challenge the strength of the foreclosing plaintiff's claim: [T]he ownership or title can be inquired into, only for the purpose of letting in any defense or set-off the maker would have had as against a former holder (wh | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hovey v. Sebring
green
1 sentence2016However, the court in Hovey never suggested that a plaintiffs failure to prove this point would warrant the dismissal of its foreclosure lawsuit; rather, a prior plaintiffs lack of standing raised a potential affirmative defense to challenge the strength of the foreclosing plaintiffs claim: [T]he ownership or title can be inquired into, only for the purpose of letting in any defense or set-off the maker would have had as against a former holder (when transferred after maturity or with notice), or for the purpose of showing that the plaintiffs possession of the note is not in good faith.” Id. ( | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Linn v. Scott
green
1 sentence2016Co. v. Camp, 64 Tex. 521 (1885); Cox v. Reinhardt, 41 Tex. 591 (1874); Moreland v. Atchison, 24 Tex. 164 (1859); Bradford v. Hamilton, 7 Tex. 55 (1851); Linn v. Scott, 3 Tex. 67 (1848); Wetherell v. Evarts, 17 Vt. 219 (1845); Turner v. Pierce, 31 Wis. 342 (1872). - 12 - foreclosure lawsuit; rather, a prior plaintiff's lack of standing raised a potential affirmative defense to challenge the strength of the foreclosing plaintiff's claim: [T]he ownership or title can be inquired into, only for the purpose of letting in any defense or set-off the maker would have had as against a former holder (wh | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bradford v. Hamilton
neutral
1 sentence2016Co. v. Camp, 64 Tex. 521 (1885); Cox v. Reinhardt, 41 Tex. 591 (1874); Moreland v. Atchison, 24 Tex. 164 (1859); Bradford v. Hamilton, 7 Tex. 55 (1851); Linn v. Scott, 3 Tex. 67 (1848); Wetherell v. Evarts, 17 Vt. 219 (1845); Turner v. Pierce, 31 Wis. 342 (1872). - 12 - foreclosure lawsuit; rather, a prior plaintiff's lack of standing raised a potential affirmative defense to challenge the strength of the foreclosing plaintiff's claim: [T]he ownership or title can be inquired into, only for the purpose of letting in any defense or set-off the maker would have had as against a former holder (wh | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Moreland v. Atchison
neutral
1 sentence2016Co. v. Camp, 64 Tex. 521 (1885); Cox v. Reinhardt, 41 Tex. 591 (1874); Moreland v. Atchison, 24 Tex. 164 (1859); Bradford v. Hamilton, 7 Tex. 55 (1851); Linn v. Scott, 3 Tex. 67 (1848); Wetherell v. Evarts, 17 Vt. 219 (1845); Turner v. Pierce, 31 Wis. 342 (1872). - 12 - foreclosure lawsuit; rather, a prior plaintiff's lack of standing raised a potential affirmative defense to challenge the strength of the foreclosing plaintiff's claim: [T]he ownership or title can be inquired into, only for the purpose of letting in any defense or set-off the maker would have had as against a former holder (wh | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Cox v. Reinhardt
neutral
1 sentence2016Co. v. Camp, 64 Tex. 521 (1885); Cox v. Reinhardt, 41 Tex. 591 (1874); Moreland v. Atchison, 24 Tex. 164 (1859); Bradford v. Hamilton, 7 Tex. 55 (1851); Linn v. Scott, 3 Tex. 67 (1848); Wetherell v. Evarts, 17 Vt. 219 (1845); Turner v. Pierce, 31 Wis. 342 (1872). - 12 - foreclosure lawsuit; rather, a prior plaintiff's lack of standing raised a potential affirmative defense to challenge the strength of the foreclosing plaintiff's claim: [T]he ownership or title can be inquired into, only for the purpose of letting in any defense or set-off the maker would have had as against a former holder (wh | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Crescent Ins. v. Camp
neutral
1 sentence2016Co. v. Camp, 64 Tex. 521 (1885); Cox v. Reinhardt, 41 Tex. 591 (1874); Moreland v. Atchison, 24 Tex. 164 (1859); Bradford v. Hamilton, 7 Tex. 55 (1851); Linn v. Scott, 3 Tex. 67 (1848); Wetherell v. Evarts, 17 Vt. 219 (1845); Turner v. Pierce, 31 Wis. 342 (1872). - 12 - foreclosure lawsuit; rather, a prior plaintiff's lack of standing raised a potential affirmative defense to challenge the strength of the foreclosing plaintiff's claim: [T]he ownership or title can be inquired into, only for the purpose of letting in any defense or set-off the maker would have had as against a former holder (wh | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.