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 1967–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Whitegreen1 sentence2007The sanction is "reserved solely for those instances where no feasible alternative exists." L.E., 754 So.2d at 61 ; see also State v. White, 792 So.2d 606, 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ("Because of the resultant immunity from future prosecution of a particular charge, dismissal is a very harsh penalty to impose upon the State and is reserved for those instances where no viable alternative exists."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. SMFgreen1 sentence2001State v. S.M.F., 546 So.2d 20, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lowe
green
2 sentences1989State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 453 So.2d 45 (Fla. 1984); State v. Lowe, 398 So.2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). 1989State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So.2d 605 (Pla. 3d DCA), review denied, 453 So.2d 45 (Fla.1984); State v. Lowe, 398 So.2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). | 2 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Del Gaudio
green
2 sentences1989State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So.2d 605 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 453 So.2d 45 (Fla. 1984); State v. Lowe, 398 So.2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). 1989State v. Del Gaudio, 445 So.2d 605 (Pla. 3d DCA), review denied, 453 So.2d 45 (Fla.1984); State v. Lowe, 398 So.2d 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). | 2 | 1989–1989 |
State v. LE
green
2 sentences2007In L.E., this court recognized that the sanction of dismissal punishes the public rather than the witness who failed to appear or the State, and it results in a windfall to the defendant. 754 So.2d at 61 . 2007The sanction is "reserved solely for those instances where no feasible alternative exists." L.E., 754 So.2d at 61 ; see also State v. White, 792 So.2d 606, 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) ("Because of the resultant immunity from future prosecution of a particular charge, dismissal is a very harsh penalty to impose upon the State and is reserved for those instances where no viable alternative exists."). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Bennett v. State
neutral
1 sentence1975The privilege against self-incrimination protects the individual from being compelled to incriminate himself in any manner; it does not distinguish degrees of incrimination." (p. 576) The Court then held: "Notwithstanding the fact that the evidence, aside from the testimony complained of, was sufficient to have supported a conviction, we are of the opinion that the administration of justice would best be served in this case by holding that the testimony in question, interdicted by Miranda, was improperly received, and that the resultant error was fundamental." (pp. 576-577) The affirmance of t | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Johnson v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences1967NOTES [1] Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed. 694 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 . [2] See Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 . [3] See Commonwealth v. Dravecz, Pa., 227 A.2d 904 . 1967NOTES [1] Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed. 694 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 . [2] See Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 . [3] See Commonwealth v. Dravecz, Pa., 227 A.2d 904 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Commonwealth v. Dravecz
green
1 sentence1967NOTES [1] Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed. 694 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 . [2] See Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 . [3] See Commonwealth v. Dravecz, Pa., 227 A.2d 904 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1967NOTES [1] Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed. 694 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 . [2] See Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 . [3] See Commonwealth v. Dravecz, Pa., 227 A.2d 904 . 1967NOTES [1] Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed. 694 , 10 A.L.R.3d 974 . [2] See Johnson v. State of New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719 , 86 S.Ct. 1772 , 16 L.Ed.2d 882 . [3] See Commonwealth v. Dravecz, Pa., 227 A.2d 904 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.