Skip to main content

Nathan v. State

Citations

  • 552 So. 2d 99
  • 1989 WL 126690

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that a defendant cannot claim he was unfairly surprised or prejudiced by an indictment amendment if he failed to ask for a continuance when the amendment was offered
  • applying \clearly erroneous\ standard to review of judge's fact-finding

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dan M. Lee, Prather and Robertson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

49 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

50 cases in this archive are cited by 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.