W. W. HARRISON, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
v.
C. H. SIMPSON, AS SURVIVING PARTNER OF MCRAE AND SIMPSON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
W. W. HARRISON, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,
C. H. SIMPSON, AS SURVIVING PARTNER OF MCRAE AND SIMPSON, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
106 Fla. 254
Florida Supreme Court (1932)
Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 143 So. 253 · 143 So. 217
Cited by 114 cases
Other
On Rehearing.
After the original order of affirmance was filed in this cause a rehearing with oral argument was granted and the case was again presented. After mature consideration, we find that we must adhere to the original judgment and it is so ordered.
Reaffirmed on rehearing.
Buford, C. J., and. Ellis and Brown, J.J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
Filmon v. State, 336 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1976)…irement which stands as an absolute bar to the use of evidence taken in certain warrantless searches. Warrants are generally necessary for searches of private dwellings both as a matter of Florida law, see Fla.Stat. § 933.18 (1975), Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217 (1932); Pesce v. State, 288 So. 2d 264 (Fla.App.4th, 1974); Cells v. State, 249 So. 2d 509 (Fla.App.2nd, 1971); Panzavecchia v. State, 201 So. 2d 762 (Fla. App.3rd, 1967), and as a federal constitutional matter. Coolidge v. New Hampshir…
-
Croteau v. State, 334 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 1976)…lorida law requires the same result, independently of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The warrantless search and seizure of appellant’s dwelling is in violation of Fla.Const. art. I, § 12 (1975). See Fla.Stat. § 933.18 (1975); Cooper v. State, 106 Fla. 254, 143 So. 217 (1932); Pesce v. State, 288 So. 2d 264 (Fla.App. 4th Dist.1974); Gelis v. State, 249 So. 2d 509 (Fla.App. 2d Dist.1971); Panzavecchia v. State, 201 So. 2d 762 (Fla.App. 3d Dist.1967). In Florida, the exclusionary rule is not merely a ju…
-
State v. McCarthy, 126 Fla. 433 (Fla. 1936)…ing and policing parking, is placed by the ordinance where it belongs — on those who individually enjoy such privilege. In support of these contentions, counsel for the City cite: State v. Quigg, 86 Fla. 51, 96 So. 8; State v. Cahoon, 106 Fla. 299, 143 So. 253; Steiner v. City of New Orleans (La.) 136 So. 596; Jackson v. Copelan (Ohio) 198 N. E. 596; Tomlinson v. City of Indianapolis, 144 Ind. 142, 43 N. E. [*440] 9; Blue Coach Lines v. Lewis, 220 Ky. 116, 294 S. W. 1082; State of Missouri v. Murphy, 170…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence