JOHNSON
v.
FLORIDA; GREENAWALT V. ARIZONA; TYLER V. GEORGIA; MCMANUS V. TEXAS; HARRIS V. CALIFORNIA; NELSON V. GEORGIA; STRICKLAND V. GEORGIA; BROWN V. GEORGIA; JUSTUS V. GEORGIA; GROSECLOSE V. TENNESSEE; RICKMAN V. TENNESSEE; MESSER V. GEORGIA; DOUGAN V. FLORIDA; DOUTHIT V. ZANT, WARDEN; RUFFIN V. FLORIDA; HARPER V. NEBRASKA; RUST V. NEBRASKA; PEERY V. NEBRASKA; PALMES V. FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to declare a contract for the sale of property null and void, denying specific performance and ordering the return of the deposit, due to a material non-disclosure by the seller regarding a required lift station.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that specific performance was inappropriate and that the contract should be declared null and void, with the escrowed deposit returned to the purchaser.
American Realequities, Ltd. (American) contracted to purchase property from ALM Investment Corp. (ALM) for $530,000.00, with a $25,000.00 deposit. ALM…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall,
dissenting.
Adhering to our views that the death penalty is in all circumstances cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 227, 231 (1976), we would grant certiorari and vacate the death sentences in these cases.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (175 total)
-
Hunter v. State, 660 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 1995)…s establishment of the entire context out of which the criminal action occurred. Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210, 213-214 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 920, 105 S.Ct. 303, 83 L.Ed.2d 237 (1984); Ruffin v. State, 397 So. 2d 277 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 368, 70 L.Ed.2d 194 (1981); Smith v. State, 365 So. 2d 704 (Fla.1978); see also Ashley v. State, 265 So. 2d 685, 693-94 (Fla.1972) (holding that evidence of four other murders committed shortly after the murder for which defendant was tri…
-
Heiney v. State, 447 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1984)…entire context of the crimes charged.” We agree with the state that this testimony was properly allowed into evidence. The test for admissibility of evidence of collateral crimes is relevant. In Ruffin v. State, 397 So. 2d 277 (Fla.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 368, 70 L.Ed.2d 194 (1981), we described this test of relevancy and said: In Williams v. State, [110 So. 2d 654 (Fla.1959)], we announced a broad rule of admissibility based upon relevancy. Necessity has never been established by this Co…1 / 2
-
Craig v. State, 510 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1987)…m merely because it reveals the commission of crimes not charged. The test for admissibility is not the necessity of evidence, but rather its relevancy. Hall v. State, 403 So. 2d 1321 (Fla.1981); Ruffin v. State, 397 So. 2d 277 (Fla.), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 882, 102 S.Ct. 368, 70 L.Ed.2d 194 (1981). We therefore hold that the evidence about the cattle [*864] thefts was relevant and was properly admitted. Appellant makes the same relevancy argument with regard to some testimony that indicated that he spe…1 / 3
Previewing 3 of 175 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (U.S. 1976)