Skip to main content

Hendricks v. State

Citations

  • 34 So. 3d 819
  • 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7330
  • 2010 WL 2077164

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that it is appellate court's \unrenunciable judicial duty\ to correct fundamental error even if not raised
  • holding that it is appellate court's \unrenunciable judicial duty\ to correct fundamental error even if not raised
  • stating character for sexual morality not admissible as character 17 trait
  • “Despite, Appellant’s failure to argue fundamental error, we consider whether the purported error is of a fundamental nature because it is an appellate court’s ‘unrenunciable judicial duty’ to correct fundamental error even if it is not raised.”
  • “Despite Appellant’s failure to argue fundamental error, we consider whether the purported error is of a fundamental nature because it is an appellate court’s ‘unrenunciable judicial duty’ to correct fundamental error even if it is not raised.”
  • “Despite Appellant's failure to argue fundamental error, we consider whether the purported error is of a fundamental nature because it is an appellate court's ‘unrenunciable judicial duty’ to correct fundamental error even if it is not raised.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lewis, Van Nortwick Rowe

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite 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.