Hill 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 court specifically stated that the case presented to it required application of the pre-1985 statute. The court pointed out that a sentence entered after the effective date of that statutory amendment would require a different result.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Poore v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1988-09-22· cited 288×
• Franklin v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1988-05-24· cited 48×
• Watson v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1988-07-08· cited 16×
• Dixon v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1989-08-08· cited 15×
• Poore v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1987-02-05· cited 13×
• Crosby v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1986-04-30· cited 11×
• State v. Wayne
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1988-09-22· cited 7×
• Arnette v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1990-09-20· cited 4×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Clem v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1984-08-29· cited 32×
• Brooks v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1985-10-03· cited 22×
• Ellis v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1983-08-12· cited 9×
• Johnson v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1985-11-21· cited 8×