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.
5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Colorado v. Connellygreen2 sentences1990See also Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). [7] The pertinent part of the voir dire reads as follows: Mr. Benito [assistant state attorney]: Correct me if I am wrong, yesterday you did not think that every first degree murder case warrants the death penalty, did you, sir? 1990See also Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986). [7] The pertinent part of the voir dire reads as follows: Mr. Benito [assistant state attorney]: Correct me if I am wrong, yesterday you did not think that every first degree murder case warrants the death penalty, did you, sir? | 1 | 1 |
Plevy v. Plevygreen1 sentence1987See Plevy v. Plevy, 466 So.2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frohman v. Bar-Or
green
2 sentences2005The reason for requiring these conditions precedent to the application to the rule seems to have been a concern that without these conditions, the application of the rule could nullify an otherwise valid foreclosure judgment. 660 So.2d at 635 . 2005Notably, in Frohman , the court held that before rule 1.420(e) could be applied in a mortgage foreclosure suit, "the following events must occur: 1) entry of final judgment of foreclosure; 2) sale of the foreclosed property pursuant to judgment; 3) issuance of a certificate of title for the property; and 4) a reservation of jurisdiction by the trial court for later determination of a deficiency judgment." 660 So.2d at 636 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Oregon v. Elstad
green
2 sentences1990The robbery is not involved in this case. [4] He told Brown this before warning him from memory when Brown was apprehended. [5] Conversely, Brown also could not remember not being given his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [6] The United States Supreme Court "has never held that the psychological impact of voluntary disclosure of a guilty secret qualifies as state compulsion." Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 312 , 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1294 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). 1990The robbery is not involved in this case. [4] He told Brown this before warning him from memory when Brown was apprehended. [5] Conversely, Brown also could not remember not being given his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [6] The United States Supreme Court "has never held that the psychological impact of voluntary disclosure of a guilty secret qualifies as state compulsion." Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 312 , 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1294 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1990The robbery is not involved in this case. [4] He told Brown this before warning him from memory when Brown was apprehended. [5] Conversely, Brown also could not remember not being given his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [6] The United States Supreme Court "has never held that the psychological impact of voluntary disclosure of a guilty secret qualifies as state compulsion." Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 312 , 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1294 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). 1990The robbery is not involved in this case. [4] He told Brown this before warning him from memory when Brown was apprehended. [5] Conversely, Brown also could not remember not being given his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [6] The United States Supreme Court "has never held that the psychological impact of voluntary disclosure of a guilty secret qualifies as state compulsion." Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 312 , 105 S.Ct. 1285, 1294 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Pope v. State
green
1 sentence1989Pope, 458 So.2d at 329 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Marshall v. State
green
1 sentence1980Marshall v. State, 344 So.2d 646 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 353 So.2d 679 (Fla.1977), is distinguishable from the instant case because the appellant there had been returned to the custody and jurisdiction of the court before hearing on the motion to dismiss his appeal. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.