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 2002–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jacobson v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See Jacobson v. State, 238 So. 3d 865, 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (applying tipsy coachman doctrine to find that trial court should have denied 3.850 motion as untimely); Miller v. State, 829 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Slater v. Stategreen1 sentence2022See Jacobson v. State, 238 So. 3d 865, 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (applying tipsy coachman doctrine to find that trial court should have denied 3.850 motion as untimely); Miller v. State, 829 So. 2d 321, 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (same). | 1 | 1 |
Bryant v. Stategreen1 sentence2012See Bryant v. State, 901 So.2d 810, 818 (Fla.2005) (observing that when a technically-deficient motion is stricken with leave to amend to correct the deficiency, the amended motion relates back to the original filing for the purpose of determining the timeliness of the motion). | 1 | 1 |
Cook v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Pierce v. State, 875 So.2d 726, 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Snipes v. State, 843 So.2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cook v. State, 596 So.2d 483, 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Snipes v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Pierce v. State, 875 So.2d 726, 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Snipes v. State, 843 So.2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cook v. State, 596 So.2d 483, 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Pierce v. Stategreen1 sentence2011See Pierce v. State, 875 So.2d 726, 729 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Snipes v. State, 843 So.2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Cook v. State, 596 So.2d 483, 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). | 1 | 1 |
Florida Home Builders Ass'n v. Dept. of Laborgreen1 sentence2002See Florida Home Builders, 412 So.2d at 352-353 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Green
green
1 sentence2008The court stated that the two-year period under rule 3.850 "commences when the judgment and sentence become final unless the defendant could not, with the exercise of due diligence, have ascertained within the two-year period that he or she was subject to deportation." 944 So.2d at 210 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.