Coffee v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• \The general rule is that a motion in limine is not sufficient to preserve the alleged error for appellate review in the absence of a further contemporaneous objection when the evidence is offered.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Crumbley v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-06-04· cited 15×
• Jennings v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1999-10-20· cited 11×
• Cash v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2004-07-02· cited 2×
• Pridgeon v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1999-07-29· cited 1×
• Suiter v. State of Florida
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2025-03-28

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Willis v. State
  Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1989-06-07· cited 225×
• State v. Rhoden
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1984-04-05· cited 176×
• State v. Moncla
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1997-04-18· cited 127×
• Correll v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1988-01-14· cited 104×
• Harley-Davidson Motor Co. v. Daniel
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1979-09-07· cited 89×
• Hernandez v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 8th Dist. (El Paso)· 1996-04-03· cited 41×
• Esty v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1994-08-11· cited 40×
• Reno v. Reno
  Supreme Court of Georgia· 1982-09-23· cited 40×
• State v. Synoracki
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1993-05-28· cited 28×
• DeVoll v. Burdick Painting, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1995-03-20· cited 24×
• Rindfleisch v. Carnival Cruise Lines
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1986-11-04· cited 18×
• Siegel v. State
  Court of Appeals of Texas· 1991-09-12· cited 7×
• MADSEN, SAPP, MENA, RODRIGUEZ v. Leaman
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1997-01-22· cited 4×