State v. Holland

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that discovery of contraband \in close proximity to [defendant's health insurance] card and other belongings\ was \direct evidence connecting [defendant] to the contraband from which a jury could infer actual knowledge\
• noting that the discovery of contraband “in close proximity to Holland’s [health insurance] card and other belongings” was “direct evidence connecting Holland to the contraband from which a jury could infer actual knowledge”
• health insurance card and other belongings
• health insurance card and other belongings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Jackson v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2008-08-01· cited 20×
• Taylor v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2009-05-19· cited 12×
• Evans v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2010-01-20· cited 9×
• State v. Cadore
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2011-04-27· cited 9×
• Williams v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2013-03-08· cited 7×
• Knight v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2015-08-31

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Kalogeropolous
  Supreme Court of Florida· 2000-05-11· cited 56×
• State v. Ortiz
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2000-08-23· cited 35×
• Moffatt v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1991-08-07· cited 18×
• Bell v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2003-01-31· cited 18×
• State v. McQuay
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1981-09-08· cited 16×
• Edmond v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2007-08-22· cited 12×
• Lopez v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1997-12-31· cited 12×
• Loyd v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1996-07-19· cited 8×
• Ogle v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2002-07-10· cited 5×