rudimentary inquiry (Florida) · Go Syfert
← Florida issues

rudimentary inquiry in Florida

5 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1975–1995 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Smith v. Illinois green
scotus · 1968
2 sentences

1977To forbid this most rudimentary inquiry at the threshold is effectively to emasculate the right of cross-examination itself. 390 U.S. at 131 , 88 S.Ct. at 750 .

1977To forbid this most rudimentary inquiry at the threshold is effectively to emasculate the right of cross-examination itself. 390 U.S. at 131 , 88 S.Ct. at 750 .

31975–1990
Crawford v. Gilchrist green
fla · 1912
1 sentence

1995Our Florida Supreme Court recognized this rudimentary principle long ago by stating that "[a]ll deliberative bodies, during their session, have a right to reconsider their proceedings as they deem proper, when not otherwise provided by law, and it is the final result only which is to be regarded as the thing done." Crawford v. Gilchrist, 64 Fla. 41, 59 , 59 So. 963 , 969 (1912).

11995–1995
Alford v. United States green
scotus · 1931
2 sentences

1977To forbid this most rudimentary inquiry at the threshold is effectively to emasculate the right of cross examination itself.” The Supreme Court further quoted from Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 , 51 S.Ct. 218 , 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931), as follows: “It is the essence of a fair trial that reasonable latitude be given the cross-examiner, even though he is unable to state to the court what facts a reasonable cross-examination might develop.

1977To forbid this most rudimentary inquiry at the threshold is effectively to emasculate the right of cross examination itself.” The Supreme Court further quoted from Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687 , 51 S.Ct. 218 , 75 L.Ed. 624 (1931), as follows: “It is the essence of a fair trial that reasonable latitude be given the cross-examiner, even though he is unable to state to the court what facts a reasonable cross-examination might develop.

11977–1977

Where else courts name it

IL 20 (1902–2025) CA 17 (1932–2022) TX 9 (1986–2025) PA 7 (1959–2026) MI 5 (1973–2017) FL 5 (1975–1995) IN 5 (1898–2011) CT 3 (1984–2009) AZ 3 (1955–1972) NM 3 (2010–2012) LA 3 (1975–2023) NY 2 (1987–2015) RI 2 (1974–1976) WA 2 (1901–2024) MA 2 (1981–2018) NJ 2 (1992–1994)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check