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 1981–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Richardson v. Stategreen2 sentences1992See Richardson v. State, 246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1977). 1981It is "... essential that the circumstances establishing the nonprejudice to the defendant affirmatively appear in the record." Richardson , at 775. [Emphasis supplied] Further, we think that prima facie prejudice has been demonstrated, for how could the defendant in an extortion case be more prejudiced than by the prosecutor leading *1098 counsel to think that there would be no Williams [1] type evidence from a rebuttal witness and then calling that witness on the ground that the prosecutor was "surprised" by the defendant's denial of various similar threats? | 2 | 2 |
In Interest of FRgreen1 sentence2010“There are no exact ‘magic words’ or phrases which must be used by the defense in order to necessitate the inquiry; only the fact that a discovery request has not been met.” Smith v. State, 7 So.3d 473, 506 (Fla.2009) (citing Copeland v. State, 566 So.2d 856, 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); In re F.R., 539 So.2d 588, 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)). | 1 | 1 |
Copeland v. Stategreen1 sentence2010“There are no exact ‘magic words’ or phrases which must be used by the defense in order to necessitate the inquiry; only the fact that a discovery request has not been met.” Smith v. State, 7 So.3d 473, 506 (Fla.2009) (citing Copeland v. State, 566 So.2d 856, 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); In re F.R., 539 So.2d 588, 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Stategreen1 sentence2010“There are no exact ‘magic words’ or phrases which must be used by the defense in order to necessitate the inquiry; only the fact that a discovery request has not been met.” Smith v. State, 7 So.3d 473, 506 (Fla.2009) (citing Copeland v. State, 566 So.2d 856, 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); In re F.R., 539 So.2d 588, 589 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)). | 1 | 1 |
Livigni v. Stategreen1 sentence2003See Livigni v. State, 725 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Comer v. State, 730 So.2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); C.D.B. v. State, 662 So.2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Schoppgreen1 sentence2002See State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020 (Fla.1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hallgreen1 sentence1989Although we recognize that the failure to conduct a sufficient Richardson hearing is per se reversible, we are satisfied from a review of the record as a whole that: [T]he trial court made an adequate inquiry into the surrounding facts and circumstances of the alleged discovery violations to support its conclusions and satisfy the requirements of Richardson and its progeny. *660 State v. Hall, 509 So.2d 1093, 1097 (Fla. 1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Comer v. State
green
1 sentence2003See Livigni v. State, 725 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Comer v. State, 730 So.2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); C.D.B. v. State, 662 So.2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
CDB v. State
green
1 sentence2003See Livigni v. State, 725 So.2d 1150 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Comer v. State, 730 So.2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); C.D.B. v. State, 662 So.2d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). | 1 | 2003–2003 |