Pardo v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that decisions of a district court of appeal constitute binding appellate precedent and “represent the law of Florida unless and until they are overruled by this Court” (internal quotation omitted)
• holding that decisions of a district court of appeal constitute binding appellate precedent and “represent the law of Florida unless and until they are overruled by this Court” (internal quotation omitted)
• holding that decisions of a district court of appeal constitute binding appellate precedent and “represent the law of Florida unless and until they are overruled by this Court” (internal quotation omitted)
• holding that “‘[t]he decisions of the district courts of appeal represent the law of Florida unless and until they are overruled by this Court,’” quoting Stanfill v. State, 384 So. 2d 141, 143 (Fla. 1980)
• holding that “‘[t]he decisions of the district courts of appeal represent the law of Florida unless and until they are overruled by this Court,’” quoting Stanfill v. State, 384 So. 2d 141, 143 (Fla. 1980)
• noting that “in the absence of interdistrict conflict, district court decisions bind all Florida trial courts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).