5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chavez v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Chavez, 832 So.2d at 753 *342 (citing Keen and observing “[ajbsent a showing that the delay induced this otherwise voluntary statement, we find that the trial court properly denied Keen’s motion to suppress”); Romanello v. State, 160 So.2d 529, 582-38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964) (concluding that it was defendant’s obligation to demonstrate that the delay induced the confession and “it will not be presumed that such was the case”). | 1 | 1 |
Romanello v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Chavez, 832 So.2d at 753 *342 (citing Keen and observing “[ajbsent a showing that the delay induced this otherwise voluntary statement, we find that the trial court properly denied Keen’s motion to suppress”); Romanello v. State, 160 So.2d 529, 582-38 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964) (concluding that it was defendant’s obligation to demonstrate that the delay induced the confession and “it will not be presumed that such was the case”). | 1 | 1 |
Blanco v. Stategreen1 sentence2011Hence, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress. 21 , 22 Globe, 877 So.2d at 671-72 ; Blanco v. State, 452 So.2d 520, 523 (Fla.1984) (“A trial judge’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Stategreen1 sentence2000Both parties properly cite Anderson v. State, 574 So.2d 87, 91 (Fla.1991), for the proposition that "due process is violated if a prosecutor permits a defendant to be tried upon an indictment which he or she knows is based on perjured, material testimony without informing the court, opposing counsel, and the grand jury." However, after reviewing Patrick Keen's grand jury testimony, his subsequent recantation in a sworn statement to assistant state attorney William Dimitrouleas, and the trial *281 judge's order denying Keen's motion to dismiss the indictment, we conclude that no due process vio | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anderson v. State
green
2 sentences2002Keen's suggestion that our decision in Anderson v. State, 420 So.2d 574 (Fla. 1982), mandates that his statement be suppressed is unpersuasive. 1987Keen's suggestion that our decision in Anderson v. State, 420 So.2d 574 (Fla. 1982), mandates that his statement be suppressed is unpersuasive. | 2 | 1987–2002 |
Globe v. State
green
1 sentence2011Hence, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress. 21 , 22 Globe, 877 So.2d at 671-72 ; Blanco v. State, 452 So.2d 520, 523 (Fla.1984) (“A trial judge’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion.”). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Keen v. State
green
1 sentence2000Keen, 504 So.2d at 398-99 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Keen v. State
green
1 sentence2000Keen, 639 So.2d at 598 . [5] Moran was facing an outstanding armed robbery charge in Florida at the time of his incarceration with Keen. [6] The claims are: (1) the trial court erred in denying Keen's motion for mistrial after hearsay was introduced; (2) the trial court erred in denying Keen's motion for mistrial after a witness mentioned the prior trial; (3) the trial court erred in prohibiting Keen from placing in evidence a letter relevant to a witness's motive and inconsistent with his trial testimony; (4) the trial court erred in allowing a witness to identify a hand-printed note as Keen' | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Carol City Utilities, Inc. v. Dade County
green
1 sentence1974As the keen analysis of Third District Chief Judge Tillman Pearson reflected in his lucid opinion in Carol City Utilities v. Dade County, 143 So.2d 828 (Fla.App.3d 1962), the declaratory decree statute is not a substitute for certiorari to review an administrative order of a state board or agency; certiorari to the district court is the sole remedy. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Adams v. Board of Public Instruction of Okaloosa County
neutral
1 sentence1974To like effect is Adams, supra , and other cases cited therein. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.