Skip to main content

Cardenas v. State

Citations

  • 816 So. 2d 724
  • 2002 WL 857301

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding “[a] proffer of excluded testimony is necessary to preserve a claim that the testimony was erroneously excluded,” (citing Lucas v. State, 568 So. 2d 18, 22 (Fla. 1990))
  • change in law must be argued to trial court to preserve issue for review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Wolf

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

15 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.