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 1966–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Maynard v. Cartwrightgreen2 sentences2005Brief for Respondent 21-25 (citing Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972) (per curiam)); see also Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988) ("Since Furman, our cases have insisted that the channeling and limiting of the sentencer's discretion in imposing the death penalty is a fundamental constitutional requirement for sufficiently minimizing the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action."); Apprendi, 530 U.S., at 522-23 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 (Thomas, J., concurring) ("[I]n the area of capital punishment, unlike any othe 2005Brief for Respondent 21-25 (citing Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972) (per curiam)); see also Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988) ("Since Furman, our cases have insisted that the channeling and limiting of the sentencer's discretion in imposing the death penalty is a fundamental constitutional requirement for sufficiently minimizing the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action."); Apprendi, 530 U.S., at 522-23 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 (Thomas, J., concurring) ("[I]n the area of capital punishment, unlike any othe | 1 | 1 |
Potts v. Stategreen1 sentence2004See Potts v. State, 430 So.2d 900 (Fla.1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Witt v. State
green
1 sentence2018Additionally, we don’t believe that the change in Miller would be subject to retroactive application under Witt v. State, 387 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 1980). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bearden v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2013However, as noted by the majority, a sentencing judge’s restitution plan must always be juxtaposed against the fundamental constitutional principle which prohibits a sentencing process which " 'is so arbitrary or unfair as to be a denial of due process.’ ” Slip Op. at 6 (quoting Bearden, 461 U.S. at 666 n. 8, 103 S.Ct. 2064 ). . 2013However, as noted by the majority, a sentencing judge’s restitution plan must always be juxtaposed against the fundamental constitutional principle which prohibits a sentencing process which " 'is so arbitrary or unfair as to be a denial of due process.’ ” Slip Op. at 6 (quoting Bearden, 461 U.S. at 666 n. 8, 103 S.Ct. 2064 ). . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
DeLuise v. State
green
1 sentence2013Just as in DeLuise , ”[I] commend the trial court for making an effort to recover some portion of the substantial losses suffered by the victims.” DeLuise, 72 So.3d at 253 . . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2005Brief for Respondent 21-25 (citing Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972) (per curiam)); see also Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988) ("Since Furman, our cases have insisted that the channeling and limiting of the sentencer's discretion in imposing the death penalty is a fundamental constitutional requirement for sufficiently minimizing the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action."); Apprendi, 530 U.S., at 522-23 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 (Thomas, J., concurring) ("[I]n the area of capital punishment, unlike any othe 2005Brief for Respondent 21-25 (citing Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972) (per curiam)); see also Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988) ("Since Furman, our cases have insisted that the channeling and limiting of the sentencer's discretion in imposing the death penalty is a fundamental constitutional requirement for sufficiently minimizing the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action."); Apprendi, 530 U.S., at 522-23 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 (Thomas, J., concurring) ("[I]n the area of capital punishment, unlike any othe | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2005Ring, 536 U.S. at 606 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 . 2005Ring, 536 U.S. at 606 , 122 S.Ct. 2428 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Furman v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2005Brief for Respondent 21-25 (citing Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972) (per curiam)); see also Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988) ("Since Furman, our cases have insisted that the channeling and limiting of the sentencer's discretion in imposing the death penalty is a fundamental constitutional requirement for sufficiently minimizing the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action."); Apprendi, 530 U.S., at 522-23 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 (Thomas, J., concurring) ("[I]n the area of capital punishment, unlike any othe 2005Brief for Respondent 21-25 (citing Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 , 92 S.Ct. 2726 , 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972) (per curiam)); see also Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988) ("Since Furman, our cases have insisted that the channeling and limiting of the sentencer's discretion in imposing the death penalty is a fundamental constitutional requirement for sufficiently minimizing the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action."); Apprendi, 530 U.S., at 522-23 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 (Thomas, J., concurring) ("[I]n the area of capital punishment, unlike any othe | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Rouse
green
1 sentence1966In particular, a fundamental constitutional error may be urged for the first time in an appellate court. [Town of] Monticello -v- Finlayson [ 156 Fla. 568 ], 23 So.2d 843 (Fla.1945); Parker -v-[Town of] Callahan [ 115 Fla. 266 ], 156 So. 334 (Fla. 1934).” Since the decision in the Seven-Up case, supra, we have a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal which discusses the Seven-Up case and takes up the very question that is now before us, that is, Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 882 , decided on October 12, 1965. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Parker, Et Ux. v. Town of Callahan
green
2 sentences1966In particular, a fundamental constitutional error may be urged for the first time in an appellate court. [Town of] Monticello -v- Finlayson [ 156 Fla. 568 ], 23 So.2d 843 (Fla.1945); Parker -v-[Town of] Callahan [ 115 Fla. 266 ], 156 So. 334 (Fla. 1934).” Since the decision in the Seven-Up case, supra, we have a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal which discusses the Seven-Up case and takes up the very question that is now before us, that is, Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 882 , decided on October 12, 1965. 1966In particular, a fundamental constitutional error may be urged for the first time in an appellate court. [Town of] Monticello -v- Finlayson [ 156 Fla. 568 ], 23 So.2d 843 (Fla.1945); Parker -v-[Town of] Callahan [ 115 Fla. 266 ], 156 So. 334 (Fla. 1934).” Since the decision in the Seven-Up case, supra, we have a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal which discusses the Seven-Up case and takes up the very question that is now before us, that is, Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 882 , decided on October 12, 1965. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Town of Monticello v. Finlayson
green
2 sentences1966In particular, a fundamental constitutional error may be urged for the first time in an appellate court. [Town of] Monticello -v- Finlayson [ 156 Fla. 568 ], 23 So.2d 843 (Fla.1945); Parker -v-[Town of] Callahan [ 115 Fla. 266 ], 156 So. 334 (Fla. 1934).” Since the decision in the Seven-Up case, supra, we have a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal which discusses the Seven-Up case and takes up the very question that is now before us, that is, Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 882 , decided on October 12, 1965. 1966In particular, a fundamental constitutional error may be urged for the first time in an appellate court. [Town of] Monticello -v- Finlayson [ 156 Fla. 568 ], 23 So.2d 843 (Fla.1945); Parker -v-[Town of] Callahan [ 115 Fla. 266 ], 156 So. 334 (Fla. 1934).” Since the decision in the Seven-Up case, supra, we have a decision of the Third District Court of Appeal which discusses the Seven-Up case and takes up the very question that is now before us, that is, Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 882 , decided on October 12, 1965. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.