Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

547 So. 2d 1236

Docket Nos. 88-1010, 88-1218, 88-1219, 88-1345, 88-1488, 88-1489, 88-1568, 88-1569, 88-1572, 88-2185, 88-2264 and 88-2265.

Morrow v. State

Michael Frederic MORROW, et al., Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1989-08-10

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1990

9 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“IS SECTION 893.13(l)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) CONSTITUTIONAL?”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including Salerno v. State, Smith v. State

Relies on 545 So. 2d 279 - State v. Burch

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1989-08-10

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

On Motion for Rehearing and Rehearing, August 10, 1989.

¶1James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Nancye R. Crouch, Asst. Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for appellants.

¶2Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Fleming Lee, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

¶3On Motion for Rehearing and Rehearing, En Banc August 10, 1989.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5AFFIRMED.

¶6DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., and CONRAD, R.F., Associate Judge, concur.

¶7

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND MOTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

¶8DAUKSCH, Judge.

¶9Appellant requests in his motion that we certify the question decided in this appeal. We oblige by certifying to the Supreme *1237 Court of Florida the following question of great public importance.

¶10

IS SECTION 893.13(1)(e), FLORIDA STATUTES (1987) CONSTITUTIONAL?

¶11See also State v. Burch, 545 So.2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

¶12The motion for rehearing is otherwise denied and the motion for rehearing en banc is denied.

¶13It is so ordered.

¶14GOSHORN, J., and CONRAD, R.F., Associate Judge, concur as to the Motion for Rehearing.

¶15DANIEL, C.J., and ORFINGER, COBB, SHARP, COWART and GOSHORN, JJ., concur as to the Motion for Rehearing En Banc.

/547/so2d/1236 · .json · Public domain