SOKOLOV

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Bunkley v. State, 882 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 2004)
  …HER THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HAD JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V, SECTION 3(b)(3) OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION OR OTHERWISE TO HEAR APPELLANT’S APPEAL IN THIS CAUSE FROM THE FLORI [*913] DA FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. Florida Star v. B.J.F., 484 U.S. 984, 984, 108 S.Ct. 499, 98 L.Ed.2d 498 (1987). This Court answered this question by stating: [W]e limit our answer to the context in which the question was posed. For that sole purpose, we answer the question in the affirmative. This Court in the broa…
• Tippens v. State, 897 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2005)
  …moved to dismiss the suit; the motion was denied; and the district court affirmed. The newspaper sought discretionary review in this Court, which was denied, and the newspaper appealed to the United States Supreme Court. See Florida Star v. B.J.F., 484 U.S. 984, 108 S.Ct. 499, 98 L.Ed.2d 498 (1987) (hereinafter “Florida Star I”). The victim moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, arguing that because the Florida Supreme Court lacked discretionary jurisdiction to review the case, as evidenced by its denial…
• The Fla. Star v. B. J. F., 491 U.S. 524 (U.S. 1989)
  …udicial proceedings.” Ibid., citing Fla. Op. Atty. Gen. 075-203 (1975). Before noting probable jurisdiction, we certified to the Florida Supreme Court the question whether it had possessed jurisdiction when it declined to hear the newspaper’s case. 484 U. S. 984 (1987). The State Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. 530 So. 2d 286, 287 (1988). The somewhat uncharted state of the law in this area thus contrasts markedly with the well-mapped area of defamatory falsehoods, where a long line of decisions…