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 1996–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Vinogreen2 sentences2021See State v. Vino, 100 So. 3d 716, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Darling v. State, 81 So. 3d 574, 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). 2015See Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456, 462-63 (Fla.2010) (explaining that the appropriate procedural vehicle to raise immunity under section 776.032 is a pretrial motion to dismiss under rule 3.190(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and for the trial court to then conduct an evidentiary hearing to consider the factual disputes); State v. Vino, 100 So.3d 716, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (holding that “[w]hen a defendant invokes the statutory immunity, the trial court must hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity”). | 2 | 2 |
Dennis v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456, 462-63 (Fla.2010) (explaining that the appropriate procedural vehicle to raise immunity under section 776.032 is a pretrial motion to dismiss under rule 3.190(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, and for the trial court to then conduct an evidentiary hearing to consider the factual disputes); State v. Vino, 100 So.3d 716, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (holding that “[w]hen a defendant invokes the statutory immunity, the trial court must hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity”). 2012See 51 So.3d 456, 463-64 (Fla.2010) (affirming conviction despite trial court’s failure to hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing on the defendant’s claim of immunity under the Stand Your Ground law because the defendant received a fair trial at which the jury implicitly rejected his self-defense claim that was based on the same evidence that would have been presented at the pre-trial hearing). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Yaqubiegreen2 sentences2012See State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474, 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). 2012State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474, 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). | 2 | 2 |
Darling v. Stategreen1 sentence2021See State v. Vino, 100 So. 3d 716, 717 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012); Darling v. State, 81 So. 3d 574, 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Jared Bretherick v. State of Floridared1 sentence2015Burden of Proof and Standard of Review In Bretherick v. State, 170 So.3d 766, 775 (Fla.2015), the Florida Supreme Court concluded that at a pretrial eviden-tiary hearing, the defendant bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity. | 1 | 1 |
Pluess-Staufer Industries, Inc. v. ROLLASON ENG. & MANUFACTURING, INC.green1 sentence1996See Pluess-Staufer Indus. v. Rollason Eng'g & Mfg., 597 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 606 So.2d 1166 (Fla.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Orbe v. Orbegreen1 sentence1996Compare Orbe v. Orbe, 651 So.2d 1295, 1298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (finding that wife's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction through a motion to dismiss, unsupported by an adequate affidavit, was insufficient to support a pre-trial evidentiary hearing and stating that the lower court should have, at the most, granted *933 the motion to dismiss without prejudice, for the husband to file an amended complaint properly alleging subject matter jurisdiction). [4] Where plaintiffs have alleged insufficient facts to establish jurisdiction and the court has ruled prior to an evidentiary hearing, appell | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.