Skip to main content

Springfield v. State

Citations

  • 443 So. 2d 484

How courts have described this case

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

  • ex post facto application of the retention statute is not fundamental error and objection must be made in the trial court to preserve the issue for appellate review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Danahy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

13 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.