Pleasure 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 a defendant is not entitled to successive review of an issue already decided against him on its merits
• holding successive motions are permitted under Rule 3.800(a) so long as the identical claim has not previously been adjudicated on the merits
• “For the bar of collateral estoppel to apply, the prior decision must have been on the merits.”
• “For the bar of collateral estoppel to apply, the prior decision must have been on the merits.”
• “For the bar of collateral estoppel to apply, the prior decision must have been on the merits.”
• “For the bar of collateral estoppel to apply, the prior decision must have been on the merits.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).