5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2021–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Olanogreen2 sentences2025The court explained, “No procedural principle is more familiar . . . than that a constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.” Id. (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993)). 2025It noted, “‘[n]o procedural principle is more familiar,’ the Supreme Court has observed, ‘than that a constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993)). | 3 | 3 |
Lackey v. Stategreen1 sentence2025In that case, the Court stated that “a defendant has no constitutional due process right to the correction of unpreserved error.” Dortch, 242 So. 3d at 1081. | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Cf. Jackson v. State, 983 So. 2d 562, 569 (Fla. 2008) (observing that “for sentencing errors, to raise even fundamental error on appeal, defendants must first file a motion under rule 3.800(b)”); State v. Dortch, 317 So. 3d 1074 , 1081 (Fla. 2021) (noting that “a defendant has no constitutional due process right to the correction of unpreserved error” and “that a constitutional right, or a right of any other sort, may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it” (internal quotations o | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. Stategreen1 sentence2024See Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757, 763 (Fla. 2002) (finding where the appellant “made no argument” as to a certain issue in his initial brief, that issue was deemed abandoned); D.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc., 271 So. 3d 870, 880 (Fla. 2018) (“Claims of error not raised by an appellant in its initial brief are deemed abandoned.”); cf. State v. Dortch, 317 So. 3d 1074 , 1081 (Fla. 2021) (describing that even if an error is fundamental, “a defendant has no constitutional due process right to the correction of unpreserved error”); id. at 1081–82 (explaining that “for sentencing errors, to raise | 1 | 1 |
D.H. v. Adept Community Services, Inc.green1 sentence2024See Hall v. State, 823 So. 2d 757, 763 (Fla. 2002) (finding where the appellant “made no argument” as to a certain issue in his initial brief, that issue was deemed abandoned); D.H. v. Adept Cmty. Servs., Inc., 271 So. 3d 870, 880 (Fla. 2018) (“Claims of error not raised by an appellant in its initial brief are deemed abandoned.”); cf. State v. Dortch, 317 So. 3d 1074 , 1081 (Fla. 2021) (describing that even if an error is fundamental, “a defendant has no constitutional due process right to the correction of unpreserved error”); id. at 1081–82 (explaining that “for sentencing errors, to raise | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.