Mendez v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[t]he purpose of voir dire is to ensure a fair and impartial jury”; holding that a trial court “must allow counsel the opportunity to ascertain latent or concealed prejudgments by prospective jurors”
• remanding for a new trial because the trial court abused its discretion by limiting defense counsel’s right to conduct a meaningful voir dire pursuant to rule 3.300(b

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Harrison v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-09-11· cited 4×
• Jones v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2017-04-12· cited 2×
• George v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2018-07-05· cited 1×
• Ramirez v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2005-05-04· cited 1×
• CHRISTOPHER A. STRACHAN v. STATE OF FLORIDA
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2019-10-02
• Gerhard Hojan v. State of Florida
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2020-12-03

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Davis v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1984-10-04· cited 93×
• Feller v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1994-04-21· cited 49×
• Lavado v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1986-08-21· cited 42×
• Lavado v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1985-05-28· cited 25×
• Williams v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1982-12-29· cited 23×
• Sanders v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1998-01-22· cited 20×
• O'HARA v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1994-08-24· cited 18×
• Campbell v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-03-27· cited 18×
• Miller v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-11-15· cited 13×
• Miller v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2001-05-09· cited 7×