Skip to main content

Price v. State

Citations

  • 692 So. 2d 971
  • 1997 WL 199433

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding defendant is not entitled to successive review of \a specific issue\ which has already been decided against him
  • noting that rule 3.800 \contains no proscription against the filing of successive motions\ but that \a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him\
  • holding defendant is not entitled to successive review under rule 3.800 of “a specific issue” which has already been decided against him
  • noting that “a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him”
  • confirming that successive review of issues raised in 3.800 motions is not authorized
  • noting that rule 3.800 \contains no proscription against the filing of successive motions” but that \a defendant is not entitled to successive review of a specific issue which has already been decided against him ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Per Curiam

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.