5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1969–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Gunngreen2 sentences2010See State v. Gunn, 408 So.2d 647, 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (explaining that “[w]e find no legislative intent to impose a further sanction on the state by excluding as evidence the results of a chemical test administered to a driver (who has not affirmatively revoked the statutory consent) merely because of his not being informed, prior to testing, of the consequences should testing be refused.”); State v. Iaco, 906 So.2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding that suppression of physical evidence based on law enforcement’s intentional failure to read all the consequences of refusal to submit t 2005This court found "no legislative intent to impose a further sanction on the State by excluding as evidence the results of a chemical test administered to a driver (who has not affirmatively revoked the statutory consent) merely because of his not being informed, prior to testing, of the consequences should testing be refused." Id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Iacogreen1 sentence2010See State v. Gunn, 408 So.2d 647, 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (explaining that “[w]e find no legislative intent to impose a further sanction on the state by excluding as evidence the results of a chemical test administered to a driver (who has not affirmatively revoked the statutory consent) merely because of his not being informed, prior to testing, of the consequences should testing be refused.”); State v. Iaco, 906 So.2d 1151, 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding that suppression of physical evidence based on law enforcement’s intentional failure to read all the consequences of refusal to submit t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coffeygreen1 sentence1969See State v. Coffey, Fla. 1968, 212 So.2d 632 , and the 1st District Court case of Cooper v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 183 So.2d 269 , which latter case was specifically approved by the Supreme Court in Coffey . | 1 | 1 |
Cooper v. Stategreen1 sentence1969See State v. Coffey, Fla. 1968, 212 So.2d 632 , and the 1st District Court case of Cooper v. State, Fla.App. 1966, 183 So.2d 269 , which latter case was specifically approved by the Supreme Court in Coffey . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pardo v. State
green
1 sentence2007We said in Gunn , “We find no legislative intent to impose a further sanction on the state by excluding as evidence the results of a chemical test administered to a driver ... merely because of his not being in formed, prior to testing, of the consequences should testing be refused.” Id. at 649 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Edwards
green
1 sentence1989Duval Motor Company v Woodard, 419 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1982) and State v Edwards, 463 So.2d 551 (5th DCA Fla. 1985). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Duval Motor Co. v. Woodward
green
1 sentence1989Duval Motor Company v Woodard, 419 So.2d 303 (Fla. 1982) and State v Edwards, 463 So.2d 551 (5th DCA Fla. 1985). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.