Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

518 So. 2d 918

518 So.2d 918

13 Fla.L.Weekly 51

State v. Arriagada

Supreme Court of Florida

Decided January 21, 1988

Supreme Court of Florida · decided 1988-01-21

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Whether the holdings in Jones v. State, [ 477 So.2d 566 (Fla. 1985)]; State v. G.P., [ 476 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 1985)]; and State v. C.C., [ 476 So.2d 144 (Fla. 1985)], preclude the state from seeking common law certiorari review of non-appealable interlocutory orders in criminal cases.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 530 So. 2d 924 - State v. Brea

Relies on 520 So. 2d 250 - State v. Pettis · 476 So. 2d 144 - State v. C.C. · 477 So. 2d 566 - Jones v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1988-01-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 2007

4 state decisions

20198819902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

OVERTON, Justice.

¶1We have for review State v. Arriagada, 508 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), in which the state sought review of a pretrial order suppressing certain identification testimony. The district court found this type of pretrial order nonreviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(c). The district court also found that certiorari was not available as a means for review. The court acknowledged direct conflict with State v. Wilson, 483 So.2d 23 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), and certified the following as a question of great public importance.

Whether the holdings in Jones v. State, [477 So.2d 566 (Fla.1985)]; State v. G.P., *919[476 So.2d 1272 (Fla.1985) ]; and State v. C.C., [476 So.2d 144 (Fla.1985) ], preclude the state from seeking common law cer-tiorari review of nonappealable interlocutory orders in criminal cases.

¶2508 So.2d at 1248.

¶3We recently answered this question in the negative in State v. Pettis, 520 So.2d 250 (Fla.1988). Accordingly, we quash Ar-riagada and remand to the district court for consideration consistent with Pettis.

¶4It is so ordered.

MCDONALD, C.J., and EHRLICH, SHAW, BARKETT, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
/518/so2d/918 · .json · Public domain