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 1 courts 1911–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Michael Moore v. Lisa Madigangreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 937 (7th Cir. 2012) (“To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self- defense described in Heller and McDonald.”). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Greenberggreen2 sentences1991As we stated in the case of In re Estate of Greenberg, 390 So.2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1980), appeal dismissed, 450 U.S. 961 , 101 S.Ct. 1475 , 67 L.Ed.2d 610 (1981), a strict-scrutiny analysis applies whenever a statutory classification "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the constitution." I do not imply that the state always is precluded from depriving certain persons of the right of self defense. 1991As we stated in the case of In re Estate of Greenberg, 390 So.2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1980), appeal dismissed, 450 U.S. 961 , 101 S.Ct. 1475 , 67 L.Ed.2d 610 (1981), a strict-scrutiny analysis applies whenever a statutory classification "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the constitution." I do not imply that the state always is precluded from depriving certain persons of the right of self defense. | 1 | 1 |
McCray v. Stategreen2 sentences1945See McCray v. State, 89 Fla. 65 , 102 So. 831 . 1945See McCray v. State, 89 Fla. 65 , 102 So. 831 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Syska v. Montgomery County Board of Education
green
2 sentences1991As we stated in the case of In re Estate of Greenberg, 390 So.2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1980), appeal dismissed, 450 U.S. 961 , 101 S.Ct. 1475 , 67 L.Ed.2d 610 (1981), a strict-scrutiny analysis applies whenever a statutory classification "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the constitution." I do not imply that the state always is precluded from depriving certain persons of the right of self defense. 1991As we stated in the case of In re Estate of Greenberg, 390 So.2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1980), appeal dismissed, 450 U.S. 961 , 101 S.Ct. 1475 , 67 L.Ed.2d 610 (1981), a strict-scrutiny analysis applies whenever a statutory classification "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the constitution." I do not imply that the state always is precluded from depriving certain persons of the right of self defense. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Gornick v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1991As we stated in the case of In re Estate of Greenberg, 390 So.2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1980), appeal dismissed, 450 U.S. 961 , 101 S.Ct. 1475 , 67 L.Ed.2d 610 (1981), a strict-scrutiny analysis applies whenever a statutory classification "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the constitution." I do not imply that the state always is precluded from depriving certain persons of the right of self defense. 1991As we stated in the case of In re Estate of Greenberg, 390 So.2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1980), appeal dismissed, 450 U.S. 961 , 101 S.Ct. 1475 , 67 L.Ed.2d 610 (1981), a strict-scrutiny analysis applies whenever a statutory classification "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the constitution." I do not imply that the state always is precluded from depriving certain persons of the right of self defense. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Garrison v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1991As we stated in the case of In re Estate of Greenberg, 390 So.2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1980), appeal dismissed, 450 U.S. 961 , 101 S.Ct. 1475 , 67 L.Ed.2d 610 (1981), a strict-scrutiny analysis applies whenever a statutory classification "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the constitution." I do not imply that the state always is precluded from depriving certain persons of the right of self defense. 1991As we stated in the case of In re Estate of Greenberg, 390 So.2d 40, 43 (Fla. 1980), appeal dismissed, 450 U.S. 961 , 101 S.Ct. 1475 , 67 L.Ed.2d 610 (1981), a strict-scrutiny analysis applies whenever a statutory classification "impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the constitution." I do not imply that the state always is precluded from depriving certain persons of the right of self defense. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Starr v. United States
green
1 sentence1918Mr. Chief Justice Fuller of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Starr v. United States, 153 U. S. 614 , 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 919, expressed the view that the defendant may lawfully repel an-attack upon him although made by an officer who tries to arrest him if the defendant did not know that the person trying to make the arrest was an officer. | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Wilson v. State
green
1 sentence1911This court in the case of Wilson v. State, 30 Fla., 234 , 11 South. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.