5 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecumgreen2 sentences2018Slip Op. 6 (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 411 (1976); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335, 1345-46 (11th Cir. 2012)). “[A] person may be required to produce specific documents even though they contain incriminating assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those documents was not ‘compelled’ within the meaning of the [Fifth Amendment] privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). 2016Cf. State v. Mitrani, 19 So.3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ("If a witness rightfully invokes the privilege against self-incrimination, the State may overcome the claim of privilege .... ”); In re Grand Jury, 670 F.3d at 1341 ("An individual must show three things to fall within the ambit of the Fifth Amendment_”). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Hubbellgreen1 sentence2018Slip Op. 6 (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 411 (1976); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335, 1345-46 (11th Cir. 2012)). “[A] person may be required to produce specific documents even though they contain incriminating assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those documents was not ‘compelled’ within the meaning of the [Fifth Amendment] privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
Fisher v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2018Slip Op. 6 (citing Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391, 411 (1976); In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335, 1345-46 (11th Cir. 2012)). “[A] person may be required to produce specific documents even though they contain incriminating assertions of fact or belief because the creation of those documents was not ‘compelled’ within the meaning of the [Fifth Amendment] privilege.” United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27, 35-36 (2000). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitranigreen1 sentence2016Cf. State v. Mitrani, 19 So.3d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) ("If a witness rightfully invokes the privilege against self-incrimination, the State may overcome the claim of privilege .... ”); In re Grand Jury, 670 F.3d at 1341 ("An individual must show three things to fall within the ambit of the Fifth Amendment_”). | 1 | 1 |
Norman v. Stategreen1 sentence2003Reynolds, 592 So.2d at 1086 ; Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643, 647 (Fla.1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Apfelbaum
green
2 sentences2009Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 125 , 100 S.Ct. 948 . 2009Apfelbaum, 445 U.S. at 125 , 100 S.Ct. 948 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Wilson v. State
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Reynolds v. State
green
1 sentence2003Reynolds, 592 So.2d at 1086 ; Norman v. State, 379 So.2d 643, 647 (Fla.1980). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.