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 1979–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sobota v. Stategreen1 sentence2007Thus, this case is factually distinct from Sobota v. State, 933 So.2d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (finding the results of a blood test were testimonial hearsay because a police officer ordered the testing). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sambrine v. State
green
2 sentences1995NOTES [1] It is assumed for purposes of this appeal that this arrest was based on probable cause. [2] State v. Perez, 531 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1988) (blood sample taken from a lawfully arrested DUI defendant without his consent after being involved in accident in which only he was injured held unauthorized under then-existing Section 316.1933(1), and thus results of scientific test performed on such sample were inadmissible in evidence); Sambrine v. State, 386 So.2d 546 (Fla. 1980) (blood sample taken from a lawfully arrested DUI defendant after he refused a breath and blood test unauthorized under 1985The first was Sambrine v. State, 386 So.2d 546 (Fla. 1980), which involved the question of whether the results of a blood test were admissible in evidence against a defendant in his trial for manslaughter by operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated, when the blood was extracted for testing over defendant's affirmative refusal to submit, and after he had refused to submit to a breath test. | 2 | 1985–1995 |
State v. Slaney
green
1 sentence2002The court certified the following question at the request of the state: In light of Bernie v. State, 524 So.2d 988 (Fla.1988), which holds that Florida is prohibited from giving greater protections than those contained within the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, has the Third District Court of Appeal, in State v. Slaney, 653 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), misinterpreted the Implied Consent Law Scheme 1 in violation of Article I, Section 12, Florida Constitution (1982), by hold ing that it gives greater protection from unreasonable searches and seizures than those found by the | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Bernie v. State
green
1 sentence2002The court certified the following question at the request of the state: In light of Bernie v. State, 524 So.2d 988 (Fla.1988), which holds that Florida is prohibited from giving greater protections than those contained within the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, has the Third District Court of Appeal, in State v. Slaney, 653 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), misinterpreted the Implied Consent Law Scheme 1 in violation of Article I, Section 12, Florida Constitution (1982), by hold ing that it gives greater protection from unreasonable searches and seizures than those found by the | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences2002The court certified the following question at the request of the state: In light of Bernie v. State, 524 So.2d 988 (Fla.1988), which holds that Florida is prohibited from giving greater protections than those contained within the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, has the Third District Court of Appeal, in State v. Slaney, 653 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), misinterpreted the Implied Consent Law Scheme 1 in violation of Article I, Section 12, Florida Constitution (1982), by hold ing that it gives greater protection from unreasonable searches and seizures than those found by the 2002The court certified the following question at the request of the state: In light of Bernie v. State, 524 So.2d 988 (Fla.1988), which holds that Florida is prohibited from giving greater protections than those contained within the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, has the Third District Court of Appeal, in State v. Slaney, 653 So.2d 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), misinterpreted the Implied Consent Law Scheme 1 in violation of Article I, Section 12, Florida Constitution (1982), by hold ing that it gives greater protection from unreasonable searches and seizures than those found by the | 1 | 2002–2002 |
McDonald v. State
neutral
1 sentence1995NOTES [1] It is assumed for purposes of this appeal that this arrest was based on probable cause. [2] State v. Perez, 531 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1988) (blood sample taken from a lawfully arrested DUI defendant without his consent after being involved in accident in which only he was injured held unauthorized under then-existing Section 316.1933(1), and thus results of scientific test performed on such sample were inadmissible in evidence); Sambrine v. State, 386 So.2d 546 (Fla. 1980) (blood sample taken from a lawfully arrested DUI defendant after he refused a breath and blood test unauthorized under | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Perez
green
1 sentence1995NOTES [1] It is assumed for purposes of this appeal that this arrest was based on probable cause. [2] State v. Perez, 531 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1988) (blood sample taken from a lawfully arrested DUI defendant without his consent after being involved in accident in which only he was injured held unauthorized under then-existing Section 316.1933(1), and thus results of scientific test performed on such sample were inadmissible in evidence); Sambrine v. State, 386 So.2d 546 (Fla. 1980) (blood sample taken from a lawfully arrested DUI defendant after he refused a breath and blood test unauthorized under | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Prues
neutral
1 sentence1995NOTES [1] It is assumed for purposes of this appeal that this arrest was based on probable cause. [2] State v. Perez, 531 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1988) (blood sample taken from a lawfully arrested DUI defendant without his consent after being involved in accident in which only he was injured held unauthorized under then-existing Section 316.1933(1), and thus results of scientific test performed on such sample were inadmissible in evidence); Sambrine v. State, 386 So.2d 546 (Fla. 1980) (blood sample taken from a lawfully arrested DUI defendant after he refused a breath and blood test unauthorized under | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Riggins
green
1 sentence1995NOTES [1] It is assumed for purposes of this appeal that this arrest was based on probable cause. [2] State v. Perez, 531 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1988) (blood sample taken from a lawfully arrested DUI defendant without his consent after being involved in accident in which only he was injured held unauthorized under then-existing Section 316.1933(1), and thus results of scientific test performed on such sample were inadmissible in evidence); Sambrine v. State, 386 So.2d 546 (Fla. 1980) (blood sample taken from a lawfully arrested DUI defendant after he refused a breath and blood test unauthorized under | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Burnett
green
1 sentence1995NOTES [1] It is assumed for purposes of this appeal that this arrest was based on probable cause. [2] State v. Perez, 531 So.2d 961 (Fla. 1988) (blood sample taken from a lawfully arrested DUI defendant without his consent after being involved in accident in which only he was injured held unauthorized under then-existing Section 316.1933(1), and thus results of scientific test performed on such sample were inadmissible in evidence); Sambrine v. State, 386 So.2d 546 (Fla. 1980) (blood sample taken from a lawfully arrested DUI defendant after he refused a breath and blood test unauthorized under | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Lampkin v. State
neutral
1 sentence1986This court cited Grala with approval in Lampkin v. State, 445 So.2d 673 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Lankford v. Redwing Carriers, Inc.
green
1 sentence1979Lankford v. Redwing Carriers, Inc., 344 So.2d 515 (Ala. Civ. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.