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 1 courts 1996–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rubio v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Further, “[a]s part of such review, ‘there must be evidence in the record to support a finding that any violation was willful and substantial.’” Harris v. State, 898 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quoting Rubio v. State, 824 So. 2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)). 2012See Harris v. State, 898 So.2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“[T]here must be evidence in the record to support a finding that any violation was willful and substantial.” (quoting Rubio v. State, 824 So.2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002))); see also Thompson v. State, 994 So.2d 468, 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Hearsay evidence is admissible at probation revocation hearings as long as it is not the only evidence relied upon to revoke probation.”). | 3 | 3 |
Harris v. Stategreen2 sentences2018Further, “[a]s part of such review, ‘there must be evidence in the record to support a finding that any violation was willful and substantial.’” Harris v. State, 898 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quoting Rubio v. State, 824 So. 2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)). 2012See Harris v. State, 898 So.2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“[T]here must be evidence in the record to support a finding that any violation was willful and substantial.” (quoting Rubio v. State, 824 So.2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002))); see also Thompson v. State, 994 So.2d 468, 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Hearsay evidence is admissible at probation revocation hearings as long as it is not the only evidence relied upon to revoke probation.”). | 2 | 2 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Harris v. State, 898 So.2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“[T]here must be evidence in the record to support a finding that any violation was willful and substantial.” (quoting Rubio v. State, 824 So.2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002))); see also Thompson v. State, 994 So.2d 468, 471 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Hearsay evidence is admissible at probation revocation hearings as long as it is not the only evidence relied upon to revoke probation.”). | 1 | 1 |
Bernhardt v. Stategreen1 sentence2005As part of such review, "there must be evidence in the record to support a finding that any violation was willful and substantial." Rubio v. State, 824 So.2d 1020, 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); see Bernhardt, 288 So.2d at 501 (concluding that the defendant received "due process ...; the evidence was sufficient to justify revocation; and the trial court did not abuse [its] discretion in revoking probation."). | 1 | 1 |
Van Wagner v. Stategreen1 sentence2002See id. | 1 | 1 |
Hightower v. Stategreen1 sentence1996Harris ; Hightower v. State, 529 So.2d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.