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 1981–1996 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hallman v. Stategreen2 sentences1996In Jones, this Court receded from the conclusiveness test for newly discovered evidence reaffirmed in Hallman v. State, 371 So.2d 482 (Fla. 1979), [9] and adopted the same probability test that is set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.600(a)(3). [10] As a result of Jones , the ten-day time limit for filing a motion for new trial set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.590(a) is rendered meaningless unless courts stringently test what is *743 alleged to be "newly discovered evidence." [11] I conclude that Swafford failed to meet the burden associated with newly discovered 1988However, I agree with Justice Overton's dissents in Riley v. State, 433 So.2d 976 (Fla.1988), and Hallman v. State, 371 So.2d 482 (Fla.1979), which reject the conclusiveness test in the review of petitions for writ of error coram nobis. | 1 | 4 |
Tibbs v. Stategreen1 sentence1981The use of "interests of justice" in the coram nobis context must be carefully distinguished from its use in the context of an appellate court recognizing fundamental error on appeal, see cases cited at n. 14 in Tibbs v. State, 397 So.2d 1120, 1126 (1981), or from its use in Tibbs itself. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Riley v. State
green
1 sentence1988However, I agree with Justice Overton's dissents in Riley v. State, 433 So.2d 976 (Fla.1988), and Hallman v. State, 371 So.2d 482 (Fla.1979), which reject the conclusiveness test in the review of petitions for writ of error coram nobis. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Tafero v. State
green
2 sentences1983Judge Pearson, in Tafero v. State, 406 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), a case cited by the majority, recognized the "serious problem presented by employing a coram nobis sufficiency test to the totally different question of whether the death penalty would have been imposed" in view of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Stephens v. Zant, 631 F.2d 397 (5th Cir.1980), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 814 , 102 S.Ct. 90 , 70 L.Ed.2d 82 (1981). 406 So.2d at 95 n. 13. 1983Judge Pearson, in Tafero v. State, 406 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), a case cited by the majority, recognized the "serious problem presented by employing a coram nobis sufficiency test to the totally different question of whether the death penalty would have been imposed" in view of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Stephens v. Zant, 631 F.2d 397 (5th Cir.1980), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 814 , 102 S.Ct. 90 , 70 L.Ed.2d 82 (1981). 406 So.2d at 95 n. 13. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Alpha Otis O'Daniel Stephens v. Walter Zant, Superintendent
green
1 sentence1983Judge Pearson, in Tafero v. State, 406 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), a case cited by the majority, recognized the "serious problem presented by employing a coram nobis sufficiency test to the totally different question of whether the death penalty would have been imposed" in view of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Stephens v. Zant, 631 F.2d 397 (5th Cir.1980), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 814 , 102 S.Ct. 90 , 70 L.Ed.2d 82 (1981). 406 So.2d at 95 n. 13. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
United Mine Workers of America Health & Retirement Funds v. Robinson
green
1 sentence1983Judge Pearson, in Tafero v. State, 406 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), a case cited by the majority, recognized the "serious problem presented by employing a coram nobis sufficiency test to the totally different question of whether the death penalty would have been imposed" in view of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Stephens v. Zant, 631 F.2d 397 (5th Cir.1980), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 814 , 102 S.Ct. 90 , 70 L.Ed.2d 82 (1981). 406 So.2d at 95 n. 13. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Blum v. Yaretsky
green
1 sentence1983Judge Pearson, in Tafero v. State, 406 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), a case cited by the majority, recognized the "serious problem presented by employing a coram nobis sufficiency test to the totally different question of whether the death penalty would have been imposed" in view of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Stephens v. Zant, 631 F.2d 397 (5th Cir.1980), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 814 , 102 S.Ct. 90 , 70 L.Ed.2d 82 (1981). 406 So.2d at 95 n. 13. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Diedrich v. Commissioner
green
1 sentence1983Judge Pearson, in Tafero v. State, 406 So.2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), a case cited by the majority, recognized the "serious problem presented by employing a coram nobis sufficiency test to the totally different question of whether the death penalty would have been imposed" in view of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Stephens v. Zant, 631 F.2d 397 (5th Cir.1980), cert. granted, 454 U.S. 814 , 102 S.Ct. 90 , 70 L.Ed.2d 82 (1981). 406 So.2d at 95 n. 13. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.