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 1973–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bank of New York v. Andrew Callowaygreen2 sentences2025See L.L. v. State, 189 So. 3d 252, 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Where, as here, a Florida evidentiary rule is patterned after its federal counterpart, ‘federal cases interpreting comparable provisions are persuasive and routinely looked to for interpretive guidance.’” (quoting Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 , 1071 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))). 10 identified.” Vilsaint v. State, 127 So. 3d 647, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Jackson v. State, 979 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)). 2021See L.L. v. State, 189 So. 3d 252, 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Where, as here, a Florida evidentiary rule is patterned after its federal counterpart, ‘federal cases interpreting comparable provisions are persuasive and routinely looked to for interpretive guidance.’” (quoting Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 , 1071 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))). 22 statement.” As such, hearsay can only come from a person. | 3 | 4 |
L.L. v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See L.L. v. State, 189 So. 3d 252, 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Where, as here, a Florida evidentiary rule is patterned after its federal counterpart, ‘federal cases interpreting comparable provisions are persuasive and routinely looked to for interpretive guidance.’” (quoting Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 , 1071 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))). 10 identified.” Vilsaint v. State, 127 So. 3d 647, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Jackson v. State, 979 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)). 2021See L.L. v. State, 189 So. 3d 252, 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Where, as here, a Florida evidentiary rule is patterned after its federal counterpart, ‘federal cases interpreting comparable provisions are persuasive and routinely looked to for interpretive guidance.’” (quoting Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 , 1071 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))). 22 statement.” As such, hearsay can only come from a person. | 2 | 2 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See L.L. v. State, 189 So. 3d 252, 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Where, as here, a Florida evidentiary rule is patterned after its federal counterpart, ‘federal cases interpreting comparable provisions are persuasive and routinely looked to for interpretive guidance.’” (quoting Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 , 1071 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))). 10 identified.” Vilsaint v. State, 127 So. 3d 647, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Jackson v. State, 979 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)). | 1 | 1 |
Justus v. Stategreen1 sentence2025“With regards to the admission of audio recordings,” however, “‘there [is] no specific list of requirements’ to determine compliance with section 90.901.” Santana v. State, 191 So. 3d 946, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Justus v. State, 438 So. 2d 358, 365 (Fla.1983)). | 1 | 1 |
Jose Santana v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2025“With regards to the admission of audio recordings,” however, “‘there [is] no specific list of requirements’ to determine compliance with section 90.901.” Santana v. State, 191 So. 3d 946, 948 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Justus v. State, 438 So. 2d 358, 365 (Fla.1983)). | 1 | 1 |
Vilsaint v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See L.L. v. State, 189 So. 3d 252, 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Where, as here, a Florida evidentiary rule is patterned after its federal counterpart, ‘federal cases interpreting comparable provisions are persuasive and routinely looked to for interpretive guidance.’” (quoting Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 , 1071 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))). 10 identified.” Vilsaint v. State, 127 So. 3d 647, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Jackson v. State, 979 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)). | 1 | 1 |
Hightower v. Bigoneygreen1 sentence2020Our supreme court has stated that to the extent the Florida Evidence Code is patterned after the Federal Evidence Code, “we should construe the former in accordance with federal court decisions interpreting the latter.” Moore v. State, 452 So. 2d 559, 562 (Fla. 1984); see, e.g., Hightower v. Bigoney, 156 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1963); Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 , 1071 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Where, as here, a Florida evidentiary rule is patterned after its federal counterpart, ‘federal cases interpreting comparable provisions are persuasive and routinely looked to for interpretive gu | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2020Our supreme court has stated that to the extent the Florida Evidence Code is patterned after the Federal Evidence Code, “we should construe the former in accordance with federal court decisions interpreting the latter.” Moore v. State, 452 So. 2d 559, 562 (Fla. 1984); see, e.g., Hightower v. Bigoney, 156 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 1963); Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 , 1071 n.3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (“Where, as here, a Florida evidentiary rule is patterned after its federal counterpart, ‘federal cases interpreting comparable provisions are persuasive and routinely looked to for interpretive gu | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Charles Johnson v. State of Florida
neutral
1 sentence2020In Johnson v. State, 254 So. 3d 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018), the First District recently relied on federal precedent as persuasive authority on the admission of lay opinion related to law enforcement experience. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Carriage Hills Condominium, Inc. v. JBH Roofing & Constructors, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016“Where, as here, a Florida evidentiary rule is patterned after its federal counterpart, ‘federal cases interpreting comparable provisions are persuasive and routinely looked to for interpretive guidance.’” Bank of N.Y v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 , 1071 n. 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), reh’g denied (Mar. 3, 2015), review denied, 177 So. 3d 1263 (Fla. 2015) (quoting Carriage Hills Condo., Inc. v. JBH Roofing & Constructors, Inc., 109 So. 3d 329 , 334 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA) rev. dismissed, 130 So. 3d 692 (Fla. 2013)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Donald M. Wingate v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, State of Florida
green
1 sentence1973Wingate v. Wainwright, 5 Cir.1972, 464 F.2d 209 states as follows: * * * * * * "We do not hold that the Florida evidentiary rule which permits evidence of other offenses to be admitted to show intent, knowledge or common scheme or plan violates due process." * * * * * * "We hold that under Ashe [Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 ] where the state in an otherwise proper prosecution seeks for any purpose to relitigate an issue which was determined in a prior prosecution of the same parties, then the evidence offered for such a relitigation must be excluded from trial | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Ashe v. Swenson
green
2 sentences1973Wingate v. Wainwright, 5 Cir.1972, 464 F.2d 209 states as follows: * * * * * * "We do not hold that the Florida evidentiary rule which permits evidence of other offenses to be admitted to show intent, knowledge or common scheme or plan violates due process." * * * * * * "We hold that under Ashe [Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 ] where the state in an otherwise proper prosecution seeks for any purpose to relitigate an issue which was determined in a prior prosecution of the same parties, then the evidence offered for such a relitigation must be excluded from trial 1973Wingate v. Wainwright, 5 Cir.1972, 464 F.2d 209 states as follows: * * * * * * "We do not hold that the Florida evidentiary rule which permits evidence of other offenses to be admitted to show intent, knowledge or common scheme or plan violates due process." * * * * * * "We hold that under Ashe [Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 ] where the state in an otherwise proper prosecution seeks for any purpose to relitigate an issue which was determined in a prior prosecution of the same parties, then the evidence offered for such a relitigation must be excluded from trial | 1 | 1973–1973 |