Supreme Court of Florida· 11/2/2000

State v. Gaines

Citations

770 So. 2d 1221
2000 WL 1637591

How courts have described this case

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

“[T]his Court alone has the power to define the scope of interlocutory appeals . . . .”
“[T]his Court alone has the power to define the scope of interlocutory appeals . . . .”
“[A]rticle V, section 4(b)(1) . . . vests exclusive power in this Court to authorize non-final appeals . . . .”
\[A]n order or ruling suppressing evidence at trial is a non-final order because judicial labor is still required to effectuate a termination of the case.\
“[Wjhen a trial court grants a motion to suppress evidence during trial, jeopardy has already attached and a defendant’s constitutional protections against being placed in double jeopardy are implicated.” (citing State v. Livingston, 681 So.2d 762, 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996))
“The fact that the order granting the motion to suppress was contained in the same written order as the order of dismissal does not convert the trial court’s ruling on the motion to sup press into an independent final order that is immediately appealable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Pariente

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

34 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.