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.
6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Paul Christopher Hildwin v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2026Id. (citing Hildwin v. State, 141 So. 3d 1178, 1181, 1184 (Fla. 2014)). 2020See Hildwin v. State, 141 So. 3d 1178, 1181, 1184 (Fla. 2014). | 2 | 2 |
Lambrix v. Stategreen1 sentence2017Lambrix, 124 So.3d at 901-02 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Nelson v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Thompson v. State, 88 So.3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Nelson v. State, 43 So.3d 20, 33 (Fla.2010)). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Thompson v. State, 88 So.3d 312, 316 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (citing Nelson v. State, 43 So.3d 20, 33 (Fla.2010)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. State
green
1 sentence2026Id. (citing Hildwin v. State, 141 So. 3d 1178, 1181, 1184 (Fla. 2014)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Doorbal v. State
green
1 sentence2020Doorbal, 983 So. 2d at 492 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Swafford v. State
green
1 sentence2020When evaluating these factors to determine whether the newly discovered evidence would probably result in an acquittal or a lesser sentence on retrial, see id.; Swafford, 125 So. 3d at 767 , this Court considers it in conjunction with not only the evidence already presented at trial but also any new evidence the movant has developed in postconviction proceedings that could be introduced at a new trial, including evidence that has not been considered on its own because it was the subject of a procedurally barred claim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Huss v. State
green
1 sentence2002In the appellant's timely addendum to his rule 3.850 motion, the appellant claims that he was illegally convicted of felony driving while license is suspended or revoked, (hereinafter, DWLSR), because the prior convictions upon which the enhancement of his offense was based were obtained prior to October 1, 1997, in violation of this Court's ruling in Huss v. State, 771 So.2d 591 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.