5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY & MOTOR VEHICLES v. Marshallgreen1 sentence2011See Marshall, 848 So.2d at 485-86 ; see also Dep’t of High. | 1 | 1 |
Tynan v. DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETYgreen1 sentence2008See Tynan v. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 909 So.2d 991, 993-94 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (confirming that certiorari review is the appropriate mechanism to review an order denying issuance of a subpoena by a department hearing officer); accord State, Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Chamizo, 753 So.2d 749, 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (noting that certiorari review before a circuit court appellate panel is the proper method for challenging the hearing officer's decision to quash a subpoena at a license suspension hearing after the witness failed to appear). | 1 | 1 |
STATE, DEPT. OF HIGHWAY SAFETY v. Chamizogreen1 sentence2008See Tynan v. Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 909 So.2d 991, 993-94 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (confirming that certiorari review is the appropriate mechanism to review an order denying issuance of a subpoena by a department hearing officer); accord State, Dep't of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Chamizo, 753 So.2d 749, 752 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (noting that certiorari review before a circuit court appellate panel is the proper method for challenging the hearing officer's decision to quash a subpoena at a license suspension hearing after the witness failed to appear). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Amodeo
neutral
1 sentence2010In quashing the hearing officer’s order, the circuit court erroneously asserted that in Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Amodeo, 711 So.2d 148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), our court had “squarely and unequivocally held that a hearing officer has absolutely no discretion whatsoever to refuse to issue a subpoena for a fact witness to attend a formal driver’s license suspension hearing.” In fact, our Amodeo decision was simply a denial, without a written opinion, of a petition for writ of certiorari brought by DHSMV. 1 As such, it had no precedential value. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. RN
green
1 sentence2006Likewise, in State v. R.N., 597 So.2d 862 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992), the court held that section 322.056 does not require adjudication, but requires only a finding of delinquency, and the trial court’s acceptance of a no contest plea constitutes a finding of delinquency, thereby implicating the suspension requirement in section 322.056. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. JVW
green
1 sentence2006The State also cited various decisions from the Second and Fifth Districts, including State v. J.V.W., 739 So.2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), where the court held that the driver’s license suspension requirement of section 322.056(1) is mandatory, even when a no contest plea has been entered and adjudication has been withheld. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
DEPT. OF HWY. SAFETY & M. VEH. v. Corbin
green
1 sentence1997The Department asserts that the circuit court erred in applying Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles v. Corbin, 527 So.2d 868 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), rev. denied, 534 So.2d 399 (Fla. 1988) to this case. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.