42 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1928–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hagan v. Sun Bank of Mid-Floridagreen2 sentences2019Hagan v. Sun Bank of Mid-Florida, N.A., 666 So. 2d 580, 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (emphasis added), disapproved of on other grounds by Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 2000). 2014Relief is granted for a fundamental error not because the party has preserved a right to relief from a harmful error, but because, the public’s confidence in our system of justice would be seriously weakened if the courts failed to give relief as a matter of grace for certain, very limited and serious mistakes.” Hagan v. Sun Bank of Mid-Florida, N.A, 666 So.2d 580, 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) disapproved of on other grounds by Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla.2000). | 3 | 3 |
Ghay v. Ghaygreen2 sentences2010In Ghay v. Ghay, 954 So.2d 1186, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), this court noted that it was much more difficult to establish that a trial court abused its discretion or that a harmful error of law occurred in an order awarding temporary alimony. 2008See Ghay v. Ghay, 954 So.2d 1186, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("[I]t is undoubtedly more difficult to establish an abuse of discretion or a harmful error of law in a temporary order. | 2 | 2 |
Scoggins v. Stategreen1 sentence2024“Fundamental error has been defined as one that goes to the essence of a fair and impartial trial, error so fundamentally unfair as to amount to a denial of due process.” Scoggins v. State, 691 So. 2d 1185, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Stategreen1 sentence2020See Washington v. State, 955 So. 2d 1165, 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding that the excusal of a juror for asking “too 13 many questions” was not harmless, because “the reconfiguration of the jury panel is the very error that must be corrected”). | 1 | 1 |
Shaun D. Reed, AKA Shawn D. Reed v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2018See Reed v. State, 208 So. 3d 1231, 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (holding the lack of evidence made stealthy-entry instruction erroneous, but harmless error where State and 2 defense “barely mentioned” the inference of intent in their respective closing arguments). | 1 | 1 |
Khadafy Kareem Mullens v. State of Floridagreen2 sentences2018See Mullens, 197 So. 3d at 40 . 2018See Mullens , 197 So.3d at 40 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Crutchfieldgreen2 sentences2017E.g., Ring II, 65 P.3d at 945 ; Brice v. State, 815 A.2d 314, 321 (Del. 2003); Lovelace, 90 P.3d at 302-03 ; People v. Crutchfield, 353 Ill.App.3d 1014 , 289 Ill.Dec. 731 , 820 N.E.2d 507, 517 (2004) (finding no ex post facto violation in resentencing a defendant under procedures revised pursuant to Apprendi); Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 264 (Ind. 2004); Galindo, 774 N.W.2d at 210-11 . 11 Finally, this Court has historically chosen to remand for a new penalty phase when a harmful error occurs during the original penalty phase. 2017E.g., Ring II, 65 P.3d at 945 ; Brice v. State, 815 A.2d 314, 321 (Del. 2003); Lovelace, 90 P.3d at 302-03 ; People v. Crutchfield, 353 Ill.App.3d 1014 , 289 Ill.Dec. 731 , 820 N.E.2d 507, 517 (2004) (finding no ex post facto violation in resentencing a defendant under procedures revised pursuant to Apprendi); Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 264 (Ind. 2004); Galindo, 774 N.W.2d at 210-11 . 11 Finally, this Court has historically chosen to remand for a new penalty phase when a harmful error occurs during the original penalty phase. | 1 | 1 |
Kormondy v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Perez, 919 So.2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So.2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So.2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), for defendant who h | 1 | 1 |
James v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Perez, 919 So.2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So.2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So.2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), for defendant who h | 1 | 1 |
Ritchie v. Stategreen2 sentences2017E.g., Ring II, 65 P.3d at 945 ; Brice v. State, 815 A.2d 314, 321 (Del. 2003); Lovelace, 90 P.3d at 302-03 ; People v. Crutchfield, 353 Ill.App.3d 1014 , 289 Ill.Dec. 731 , 820 N.E.2d 507, 517 (2004) (finding no ex post facto violation in resentencing a defendant under procedures revised pursuant to Apprendi); Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 264 (Ind. 2004); Galindo, 774 N.W.2d at 210-11 . 11 Finally, this Court has historically chosen to remand for a new penalty phase when a harmful error occurs during the original penalty phase. 2017App. Ct. 2004) (finding no ex post facto violation in resentencing a defendant under procedures revised pursuant to Apprendi); Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 264 (Ind. 2004); Galindo, 774 N.W.2d at 210-11 .11 Finally, this Court has historically chosen to remand for a new penalty phase when a harmful error occurs during the original penalty phase. | 1 | 1 |
Perez v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Perez, 919 So.2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So.2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So.2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), for defendant who h | 1 | 1 |
Brice v. Stategreen1 sentence2017E.g., Ring II, 65 P.3d at 945 ; Brice v. State, 815 A.2d 314, 321 (Del. 2003); Lovelace, 90 P.3d at 302-03 ; People v. Crutchfield, 353 Ill.App.3d 1014 , 289 Ill.Dec. 731 , 820 N.E.2d 507, 517 (2004) (finding no ex post facto violation in resentencing a defendant under procedures revised pursuant to Apprendi); Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 264 (Ind. 2004); Galindo, 774 N.W.2d at 210-11 . 11 Finally, this Court has historically chosen to remand for a new penalty phase when a harmful error occurs during the original penalty phase. | 1 | 1 |
Atkins v. Stategreen1 sentence2017See, e.g., Perez, 919 So.2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So.2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So.2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), for defendant who h | 1 | 1 |
Banks v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Cf. Banks v. State, 46 So. 3d 989, 998-99 (Fla. -5- 2010) (holding there was no error in admission of highly probative soundless surveillance video despite prejudice of showing a violent but short-lived crime occur); Singleton v. State, 783 So. 2d 970, 976 (Fla. 2001) (holding there was no error in admission of highly probative video despite prejudice of showing defendant in prison uniform).1 In allowing prejudicial evidence in this case, the court committed harmful error. | 1 | 1 |
Singleton v. Stategreen1 sentence2014Cf. Banks v. State, 46 So. 3d 989, 998-99 (Fla. -5- 2010) (holding there was no error in admission of highly probative soundless surveillance video despite prejudice of showing a violent but short-lived crime occur); Singleton v. State, 783 So. 2d 970, 976 (Fla. 2001) (holding there was no error in admission of highly probative video despite prejudice of showing defendant in prison uniform).1 In allowing prejudicial evidence in this case, the court committed harmful error. | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Masaka v. State, 4 So.3d 1274, 1285-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (noting that a harmful error occurs with a jury instruction that is “capable of misleading the jury in such a way as to prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial” (quoting Lewis v. State, 693 So.2d 1055, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997))). | 1 | 1 |
Masaka v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Masaka v. State, 4 So.3d 1274, 1285-86 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (noting that a harmful error occurs with a jury instruction that is “capable of misleading the jury in such a way as to prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial” (quoting Lewis v. State, 693 So.2d 1055, 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997))). | 1 | 1 |
| Mercer v. Rainegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ross v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Straight v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Niceville v. Hardygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dunlap v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hotel Halceyon Corp. v. the Guardian Trust Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Arbuthnot v. Brooks-Scanlon Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Maharaj v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kelley v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gonzalez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Donaldson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wuornos v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wilding v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. DiGuiliogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Le Fevre v. Beargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Loftin v. Skeltongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jordan v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019Hagan v. Sun Bank of Mid-Florida, N.A., 666 So. 2d 580, 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (emphasis added), disapproved of on other grounds by Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 2000). 2014Relief is granted for a fundamental error not because the party has preserved a right to relief from a harmful error, but because, the public’s confidence in our system of justice would be seriously weakened if the courts failed to give relief as a matter of grace for certain, very limited and serious mistakes.” Hagan v. Sun Bank of Mid-Florida, N.A, 666 So.2d 580, 584 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) disapproved of on other grounds by Murphy v. Int’l Robotic Sys., Inc., 766 So.2d 1010 (Fla.2000). | 2 | 2014–2019 |
Ruby Saunders, etc. v. Willis Dickens, M.D.
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 442-43 . 2018Id. at 442-43 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Cavaliere v. State
green
1 sentence2026For example, in Cavaliere, 147 So. 3d at 630 , this court held that harmful error occurred when a detective improperly vouched for a child victim by telling the jury what truth qualification is, that the child victim had been truth qualified, and that "by looking at her and kind of getting a feel for her I could tell that, you know, she was— she was acting appropriately. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Sims v. State
green
1 sentence2024Cf. Sims v. State, 135 So. 3d 1098 , 1101–02 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (describing fundamental error as the shifting of the burden to the defendant to prove a harmful error while the harmless error analysis puts the burden on the State to prove that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Espinosa v. Florida
green
2 sentences2017See, e.g., Perez, 919 So.2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So.2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So.2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), for defendant who h 2017See, e.g., Perez, 919 So.2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So.2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So.2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), for defendant who h | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Gross v. Lyons
green
2 sentences2017In Gross v. Lyons, 721 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the Fourth District Court of Appeal stated, “Reversible error occurs when an instruction is not only an erroneous or incomplete statement of the law, but is also confusing or misleading.” Id. at 306 ; see Holman Live Stock Co. v. Louisville & N.R. 2017In Gross v. Lyons, 721 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), the Fourth District Court of Appeal stated, “Reversible error occurs when an instruction is not only an erroneous or incomplete statement of the law, but is also confusing or misleading.” Id. at 306 ; see Holman Live Stock Co. v. Louisville & N.R. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Elledge v. State
green
1 sentence2017See, e.g., Perez, 919 So.2d at 381-82 (remanding for new penalty phase after the erroneous finding of HAC was considered harmful in light of the historical weight associated with that aggravating circumstance); Kormondy v. State, 703 So.2d 454, 462-63 (Fla. 1997) (remanding for new penalty phase for harmful admission of prejudicial, irrelevant evidence in the penalty phase); James v. State, 615 So.2d 668, 669 (Fla. 1993) (remanding for new penalty phase following invalidation of HAC instruction by Espinosa v. Florida, 505 U.S. 1079 , 112 S.Ct. 2926 , 120 L.Ed.2d 854 (1992), for defendant who h | 1 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Crutchfield
green
1 sentence2017E.g., Ring II, 65 P.3d at 945 ; Brice v. State, 815 A.2d 314, 321 (Del. 2003); Lovelace, 90 P.3d at 302-03 ; People v. Crutchfield, 353 Ill.App.3d 1014 , 289 Ill.Dec. 731 , 820 N.E.2d 507, 517 (2004) (finding no ex post facto violation in resentencing a defendant under procedures revised pursuant to Apprendi); Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 264 (Ind. 2004); Galindo, 774 N.W.2d at 210-11 . 11 Finally, this Court has historically chosen to remand for a new penalty phase when a harmful error occurs during the original penalty phase. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Green v. State
green
1 sentence2017This court found this was not an amendment but rather “the filing of a new and entirely different offense.” Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Galindo
green
2 sentences2017E.g., Ring II, 65 P.3d at 945 ; Brice v. State, 815 A.2d 314, 321 (Del. 2003); Lovelace, 90 P.3d at 302-03 ; People v. Crutchfield, 353 Ill.App.3d 1014 , 289 Ill.Dec. 731 , 820 N.E.2d 507, 517 (2004) (finding no ex post facto violation in resentencing a defendant under procedures revised pursuant to Apprendi); Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 264 (Ind. 2004); Galindo, 774 N.W.2d at 210-11 . 11 Finally, this Court has historically chosen to remand for a new penalty phase when a harmful error occurs during the original penalty phase. 2017App. Ct. 2004) (finding no ex post facto violation in resentencing a defendant under procedures revised pursuant to Apprendi); Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 264 (Ind. 2004); Galindo, 774 N.W.2d at 210-11 .11 Finally, this Court has historically chosen to remand for a new penalty phase when a harmful error occurs during the original penalty phase. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Ring
green
1 sentence2017E.g., Ring II, 65 P.3d at 945 ; Brice v. State, 815 A.2d 314, 321 (Del. 2003); Lovelace, 90 P.3d at 302-03 ; People v. Crutchfield, 353 Ill.App.3d 1014 , 289 Ill.Dec. 731 , 820 N.E.2d 507, 517 (2004) (finding no ex post facto violation in resentencing a defendant under procedures revised pursuant to Apprendi); Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 264 (Ind. 2004); Galindo, 774 N.W.2d at 210-11 . 11 Finally, this Court has historically chosen to remand for a new penalty phase when a harmful error occurs during the original penalty phase. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Lovelace
green
1 sentence2017E.g., Ring II, 65 P.3d at 945 ; Brice v. State, 815 A.2d 314, 321 (Del. 2003); Lovelace, 90 P.3d at 302-03 ; People v. Crutchfield, 353 Ill.App.3d 1014 , 289 Ill.Dec. 731 , 820 N.E.2d 507, 517 (2004) (finding no ex post facto violation in resentencing a defendant under procedures revised pursuant to Apprendi); Ritchie v. State, 809 N.E.2d 258, 264 (Ind. 2004); Galindo, 774 N.W.2d at 210-11 . 11 Finally, this Court has historically chosen to remand for a new penalty phase when a harmful error occurs during the original penalty phase. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Donna Horwitz v. State
green
1 sentence2016Horwitz, 189 So.3d at 800 n. 1, 804. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Bonifay v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Public Health Trust of Dade Cty. v. Valcin green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Galindez v. State green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Cardenas v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Bender green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Conley v. State green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Baird green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Sanborn green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Rauso v. State green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Williamson v. State green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Eisner v. Eisner green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Murray green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Brown v. State green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Tallahassee Democrat, Inc. v. Pogue neutral | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Swindell v. Hellkamp green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
| Simpson v. State green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Scarpati v. State green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| Espinola v. State neutral | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Burnette v. State green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| State v. Febre green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Lawson v. Loftin green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Conran v. State green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Powell v. American Sumatra Tobacco Company green | 1 | 1959–1959 |
| Garner v. State green | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.