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 1931–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
San Joaquin County Public Conservator v. Joel E.green1 sentence2020In cases applying the due process clause of the Florida Constitution or the 1 In Faretta, the United States Supreme Court enforced a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to self-representation in criminal matters as “independently found in the structure and history of the constitutional text.” 422 U.S. at 819 n.15. 2 In Nelson, we held that when a criminal defendant voices displeasure with appointed counsel, a trial court is required to inquire whether there is a basis to believe counsel is ineffective, again, applying the Sixth Amendment. 274 So. 2d at 258–59. 3 See, e.g., Jones v. Stat | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate Districtgreen1 sentence2020In cases applying the due process clause of the Florida Constitution or the 1 In Faretta, the United States Supreme Court enforced a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to self-representation in criminal matters as “independently found in the structure and history of the constitutional text.” 422 U.S. at 819 n.15. 2 In Nelson, we held that when a criminal defendant voices displeasure with appointed counsel, a trial court is required to inquire whether there is a basis to believe counsel is ineffective, again, applying the Sixth Amendment. 274 So. 2d at 258–59. 3 See, e.g., Jones v. Stat | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Stategreen1 sentence2020In cases applying the due process clause of the Florida Constitution or the 1 In Faretta, the United States Supreme Court enforced a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to self-representation in criminal matters as “independently found in the structure and history of the constitutional text.” 422 U.S. at 819 n.15. 2 In Nelson, we held that when a criminal defendant voices displeasure with appointed counsel, a trial court is required to inquire whether there is a basis to believe counsel is ineffective, again, applying the Sixth Amendment. 274 So. 2d at 258–59. 3 See, e.g., Jones v. Stat | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Faretta v. California
green
2 sentences2020In cases applying the due process clause of the Florida Constitution or the 1 In Faretta, the United States Supreme Court enforced a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to self-representation in criminal matters as “independently found in the structure and history of the constitutional text.” 422 U.S. at 819 n.15. 2 In Nelson, we held that when a criminal defendant voices displeasure with appointed counsel, a trial court is required to inquire whether there is a basis to believe counsel is ineffective, again, applying the Sixth Amendment. 274 So. 2d at 258–59. 3 See, e.g., Jones v. Stat 1978Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution required states to afford the accused the right of self-representation. | 2 | 1978–2020 |
Browning v. Hooper
green
2 sentences1931This was expressly decided in the now famous Texas Road Bond case, Browning v. Hooper, 269 U.S. 396 , 70 L.Ed. 330 . 1931This was expressly decided in the now famous Texas Road Bond case, Browning v. Hooper, 269 U.S. 396 , 70 L.Ed. 330 . | 2 | 1931–1931 |
Nelson v. State
green
1 sentence2020In cases applying the due process clause of the Florida Constitution or the 1 In Faretta, the United States Supreme Court enforced a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to self-representation in criminal matters as “independently found in the structure and history of the constitutional text.” 422 U.S. at 819 n.15. 2 In Nelson, we held that when a criminal defendant voices displeasure with appointed counsel, a trial court is required to inquire whether there is a basis to believe counsel is ineffective, again, applying the Sixth Amendment. 274 So. 2d at 258–59. 3 See, e.g., Jones v. Stat | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Clinton William Baker v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida
green
1 sentence1971Baker v. Wainwright, 422 F.2d 145 (5th Cir.1970); Fitzgerald v. Wainwright, 440 F.2d 1049 (5th Cir.1971). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Julian R. Fitzgerald v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida
green
1 sentence1971Baker v. Wainwright, 422 F.2d 145 (5th Cir.1970); Fitzgerald v. Wainwright, 440 F.2d 1049 (5th Cir.1971). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.