Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

State v. Walsh

204 So. 3d 169 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Walsh

4 Citing cases

  1. Jon M. Hall Co. v. Canoe Creek Invs.

    385 So. 3d 648 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2024)

    In fact, had the court declined to follow Hiller, that may well have been a departure. See Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Walsh, 204 So. 3d 169, 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ("This failure to follow [controlling case] was a profound error, amounting to a clear departure from the essential requirements of law …

  2. Romero v. State

    314 So. 3d 699 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    See State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Sanders, ––– So.3d ––––, ––––, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D870, D871, 2020 WL 1870776 (Fla. April 15, 2020) ("A classic example of a departure from the essential requirements of the law is a trial court's failure to follow binding precedent.") (citing State v. Walsh, 204 So. 3d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ; Powell v. City of Sarasota, 857 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ). "For several centuries (at least since 1600) the different common law crimes have been so defined as to require, for guilt, that the defendant's acts or omissions be accompanied by one or more of the various types of fault (intention, knowledge, recklessness or—more rarely—negligence)."

  3. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Sanders

    327 So. 3d 342 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    A classic example of a departure from the essential requirements of the law is a trial court's failure to follow binding precedent. See, e.g., State v. Walsh, 204 So. 3d 169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ; Powell v. City of Sarasota, 857 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). It is self-evident that the trial court's faithful following of our decisions in Rios and Galvis cannot constitute a departure from the essential requirements of the law. (Indeed, one might rightly conclude that had the trial court failed to follow those two decisions it would have constituted a departure from the essential requirements of the law.).

  4. Miami Dade Coll. v. Allen

    No. 3D18-2218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    "); see, e.g., Siegle v. Lee Cty., 198 So. 3d 773, 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ("No such contrary binding authority exists . . . the circuit court's ruling . . . constituted a departure from the essential requirements of the law."); State v. Walsh, 204 So. 3d 169, 171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ("The circuit court [engaged in profound] error by . . . fail[ing] to follow binding precedent of a sibling court."). Thus, I agree certiorari relief is warranted.