Michael Ratley v. State of Florida

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “to invoke estoppel against the Government, the party claiming estoppel must show ‘affirmative misconduct’ as opposed to mere failure to inform or assist”
• noting that concession of guilt “severely limit[ed] [the defendant’s] ability to complain of purported errors”
• explaining that the defendant \'does not dispute the government's assertion that he made no attempt to operate as a classic collective'\ as permitted by a \California statute [] allowing medical marijuana collectives\
• finding the statement that “[Defendant] didn’t know anything about this deal” not admissible under Rule 804(b)(3
• finding the statement that “[Defendant] didn’t know anything about this deal” not admissible under Rule 804(b)(3
• requiring the defendant show that “an authorized government official, empowered to render the claimed erroneous advice . . . who has been made aware of all the relevant historical facts” authorized the conduct

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).