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 2 courts 1977–2019 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. Allengreen2 sentences2019See Shelden, 38 So. 3d at 216 ("[T]he State is [obligated] to demonstrate, by evidence other than the defendant's admission, that the crime was in fact committed."); see also Allen, 335 So. 2d at 825 (requiring proof "that a crime has been committed" to ensure that "no person be convicted out of derangement, mistake or official fabrication"). 2019See Shelden , 38 So.3d at 216 ("[T]he State is [obligated] to demonstrate, by evidence other than the defendant's admission, that the crime was in fact committed."); see also Allen , 335 So.2d at 825 (requiring proof "that a crime has been committed" to ensure that "no person be convicted out of derangement, mistake or official fabrication"). | 3 | 3 |
Shelden v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Shelden, 38 So. 3d at 216 ("[T]he State is [obligated] to demonstrate, by evidence other than the defendant's admission, that the crime was in fact committed."); see also Allen, 335 So. 2d at 825 (requiring proof "that a crime has been committed" to ensure that "no person be convicted out of derangement, mistake or official fabrication"). 2019See Shelden , 38 So.3d at 216 ("[T]he State is [obligated] to demonstrate, by evidence other than the defendant's admission, that the crime was in fact committed."); see also Allen , 335 So.2d at 825 (requiring proof "that a crime has been committed" to ensure that "no person be convicted out of derangement, mistake or official fabrication"). | 3 | 3 |
Burris v. Stategreen1 sentence2000See Burris v. State, 748 So.2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Young v. State, 744 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Herrero v. Atkinsongreen2 sentences1977Herrero v. Atkinson, 227 Cal. App.2d 69 , 38 Cal. Rptr. 490, 493 (1st Dist. 1964). *706 There is a fundamental distinction between indemnity and contribution. 1977Herrero v. Atkinson, 227 Cal. App.2d 69 , 38 Cal. Rptr. 490, 493 (1st Dist. 1964). *706 There is a fundamental distinction between indemnity and contribution. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Young v. State
green
1 sentence2000See Burris v. State, 748 So.2d 332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Young v. State, 744 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.