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 1992–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Newson v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Thompson v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 867 So.2d 603, 605 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Riveragreen1 sentence2006See State v. Rivera, 719 So.2d 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Sneed v. State, 580 So.2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2000See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . 2000See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
O'CONNOR v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.
green
2 sentences2008O'Connor, 517 U.S. at 312 , 116 S.Ct. 1307 . 2008O'Connor, 517 U.S. at 312 , 116 S.Ct. 1307 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
King v. State
green
1 sentence2006See State v. Rivera, 719 So.2d 335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); Sneed v. State, 580 So.2d 169 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Duren v. Missouri
green
2 sentences1995From the foregoing statistical evidence, the appellant and his codefendant argued that they had made a prima facie case of violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right of a defendant to have his petit jury selected from a fair cross section of the community, citing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979): In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the *1212 group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires 1995From the foregoing statistical evidence, the appellant and his codefendant argued that they had made a prima facie case of violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right of a defendant to have his petit jury selected from a fair cross section of the community, citing Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 , 99 S.Ct. 664 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979): In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the *1212 group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Medlin
green
2 sentences1992In State v. Medlin, 273 So.2d 394 (Fla. 1973), the court explained the different burdens placed on the state in proving a prima facie case of violation of a criminal statute when there is a question of knowledge raised: The Florida cases set out the rule that where a Statute denounces the doing of an act as criminal without specifically requiring criminal intent, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the commission of such act was accompanied by criminal intent. 1992It is only when criminal intent is required as an element of the offense that the question of "guilty knowledge" may become pertinent in the State's case. 273 So.2d at 396 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.