Smith 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 the requirement that a defendant pay for drug testing is a special condition of probation which must be pronounced at sentencing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Torres v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-06-12· cited 6×
• Porchia v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-02-13· cited 3×
• Steinard v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-04-17· cited 1×
• Hernandez v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-03-27
• Fisher v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1998-04-24
• State v. Smith
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1998-06-04

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Reyes v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1995-02-15· cited 332×
• State v. Hart
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1996-02-22· cited 141×
• Malone v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1995-03-22· cited 47×
• Brock v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1997-02-06· cited 17×
• Mickler v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-10-30· cited 16×
• Reiter v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-05-22· cited 12×
• Curry v. State
  Supreme Court of Florida· 1996-11-07· cited 12×
• Williams v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1997-10-08· cited 11×
• Tolbert v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1997-08-20· cited 5×
• McDaniels v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-09-11· cited 5×
• Wallace v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-10-09· cited 4×
• Boynton v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1997-11-12· cited 1×