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 1992–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mitchell v. Mooregreen2 sentences2015See Mitchell v. Moore, 786 So.2d 521, 530 (Fla.2001) (recognizing that the "pipeline” theory allows a defendant to seek application of a new rule of law if the defendant's case is pending on direct review or not yet final at the time the new rule of law was announced). 2 . 2015See Mitchel v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 521, 530 (Fla. 2001) (recognizing that the “pipeline” theory allows a defendant to seek application of a new rule of law if the defendant’s case is pending on direct review or not yet final at the time the new rule of law was announced). 2 In State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252, 256 (Fla. 2010), the Supreme Court of Florida held that “the crime of manslaughter by act does not require proof that the defendant intended to kill the victim.” The court further held that giving the then- standard jury instruction for manslaughter by act, which required such proof, con | 3 | 3 |
State v. Montgomerygreen2 sentences2015In State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252, 256 (Fla.2010), the Supreme Court of Florida held that "the crime of manslaughter by act does not require proof that the defendant intended to kill the victim.” The court further held that giving the then-standard jury instruction for manslaughter by act, which required such proof, constitutes fundamental error when a defendant is convicted of an offense one step removed from that offense. 2015See Mitchel v. Moore, 786 So. 2d 521, 530 (Fla. 2001) (recognizing that the “pipeline” theory allows a defendant to seek application of a new rule of law if the defendant’s case is pending on direct review or not yet final at the time the new rule of law was announced). 2 In State v. Montgomery, 39 So. 3d 252, 256 (Fla. 2010), the Supreme Court of Florida held that “the crime of manslaughter by act does not require proof that the defendant intended to kill the victim.” The court further held that giving the then- standard jury instruction for manslaughter by act, which required such proof, con | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Standard Jury Inst.-Criminal Cases
green
1 sentence2003NOTES [*] We urge the Florida Supreme Court Committee on Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases to review the quoted jury instructions with a view to clarifying whether the instruction entitled "Drug Abuse—Possession on or Near School F.S. 893.13(1)(e)" should have been deleted at the time the new standard jury instruction was approved in 2000. 765 So.2d at 700 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Keys v. State
green
1 sentence1992In Keys v. State, 606 So.2d 669 (Fla.1992), we retroactively applied the Fenelon rule to cases pending on direct review or which were not final at the time the new rule was announced. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.