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 1978–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. Stategreen1 sentence2017After receiving the State’s response, but without the testimony presented, the trial court denied the motion without making any findings of facts.1 1 Generally, in reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, this court accords a presumption of correctness to the trial court’s findings of historical fact, reversing only if the findings are not supported by competent, substantial evidence, but reviews de novo “whether the application of the law to the historical facts establishes an adequate basis for the trial court’s ruling.” Parker v. State, 873 So. 2d 270, 279 (Fla. 2004) (citi | 1 | 1 |
Connor v. Stategreen1 sentence2017After receiving the State’s response, but without the testimony presented, the trial court denied the motion without making any findings of facts.1 1 Generally, in reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress, this court accords a presumption of correctness to the trial court’s findings of historical fact, reversing only if the findings are not supported by competent, substantial evidence, but reviews de novo “whether the application of the law to the historical facts establishes an adequate basis for the trial court’s ruling.” Parker v. State, 873 So. 2d 270, 279 (Fla. 2004) (citi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2023The county court granted Bender’s motion to suppress certain statements made during her arrest after concluding the statements were obtained in violation the Supreme Court’s directive in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2017The argument raised below and renewed on appeal is that the statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1992). | 6 | 1978–2023 |
Traylor v. State
green
2 sentences2017The argument raised below and renewed on appeal is that the statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Traylor v. State, 596 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1992). 2017The argument raised below and renewed on appeal is that the statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and Traylor v. State, 596 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1992). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.