Shade v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• finding defendant’s post-conviction claim was facially sufficient even if defendant’s suppression motion was not dispositive, and thus, not appealable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Anderson v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-12-31· cited 5×
• Julius Danal Bunch v. State of Florida
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2024-10-08

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Strickland v. Washington
  Supreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
• Anders v. California
  Supreme Court· 1967-05-08· cited 87,848×
• Spera v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2007-11-01· cited 504×
• Tidwell v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2003-05-01· cited 10×
• Helms v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1991-01-04· cited 9×
• Daniels v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-01-16· cited 5×
• Hawley v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-07-26· cited 5×
• Merkison v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2009-01-12· cited 2×
• Shade v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2009-04-21· cited 1×