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 2008–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sanchez v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Tingley v. State, 549 So. 2d 649, 651 (Fla. 1989) (“[T]ime is not ordinarily a substantive part of an indictment or information and there may be a variance between the dates proved at trial and those alleged in the indictment or information as long as: (1) the crime was committed before the return date of the indictment; (2) the crime was committed within the applicable statute of limitations; and (3) the defendant has been neither surprised nor hampered in preparing his defense.”); Sanchez v. State, 956 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“Here, appellant did not request a statement of | 1 | 1 |
Tingley v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Tingley v. State, 549 So. 2d 649, 651 (Fla. 1989) (“[T]ime is not ordinarily a substantive part of an indictment or information and there may be a variance between the dates proved at trial and those alleged in the indictment or information as long as: (1) the crime was committed before the return date of the indictment; (2) the crime was committed within the applicable statute of limitations; and (3) the defendant has been neither surprised nor hampered in preparing his defense.”); Sanchez v. State, 956 So. 2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“Here, appellant did not request a statement of | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2008Additionally, Bowles' claim is meritless since one of the aggravating circumstances found by the trial court in this case was Bowles' prior conviction of a violent felony, "a factor which under Apprendi and Ring need not be found by the jury." Jones v. State, 855 So.2d 611, 619 (Fla.2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
SUPERIOR FENCE & RAIL OF NORTH FLORIDA v. Lucas
green
2 sentences2019Lucas , 35 So.3d at 105 n.1 ; In re J.P. , 12 So.3d 253 , 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). 2019Lucas , 35 So.3d at 105 n.1 ; In re J.P. , 12 So.3d 253 , 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
In Re JP
green
2 sentences2019Lucas , 35 So.3d at 105 n.1 ; In re J.P. , 12 So.3d 253 , 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). 2019Lucas , 35 So.3d at 105 n.1 ; In re J.P. , 12 So.3d 253 , 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Hall v. Florida
green
1 sentence2019But I would reject Bowles’ intellectual disability claim on the ground that Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014), should not be given retroactive application. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Hurst v. Florida
green
2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Bowles’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Bowles’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Timothy Lee Hurst v. State of Florida
red
2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Bowles’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Bowles’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2161 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Allen v. United States
green
2 sentences2018After this Court decided Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), we ordered Bowles to show cause why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. 2018After this Court decided Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), we ordered Bowles to show cause why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Sedlak v. Smith
green
1 sentence2018After this Court decided Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), we ordered Bowles to show cause why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
James Ernest Hitchcock v. State of Florida
green
2 sentences2018After this Court decided Hitchcock v. State, 226 So.3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 138 S.Ct. 513 , 199 L.Ed.2d 396 (2017), we ordered Bowles to show cause why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. 2018After this Court decided Hitchcock v. State, 226 So. 3d 216 (Fla. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 513 (2017), we ordered Bowles to show cause why Hitchcock should not be dispositive in this case. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Florida v. Hurst
green
2 sentences2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Bowles’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). 2018V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. Bowles’s motion sought relief pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Hurst v. Florida, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 616 , 193 L.Ed.2d 504 (2016), and our decision on remand in Hurst v. State (Hurst), 202 So.3d 40 (Fla. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 2161 , 198 L.Ed.2d 246 (2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.