Case Citator › Pardo v. State

Pardo v. State

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Citation
596 So. 2d 665
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
83 of 83
Citing cases (total)
289
Treatment dates
2017
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Pardo v. State remains binding but has been limited: all 83 flagged citations have been read. The one confirmed treatment is listed below.
More on how this was screened

The Florida Supreme Court declined to extend Pardo's vertical-precedent rule to determine objectively reasonable police reliance under the Fourth Amendment good-faith exception when a district-court opinion remained under active high-court review. The other citing opinions applied Pardo's rule that Florida trial courts must follow district-court precedent absent interdistrict conflict, or used nearby adverse language for unrelated authorities and litigants' issues.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

289 later cases cite Pardo v. State; 83 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Pardo v. State?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The court declined to extend Pardo's vertical-precedent rule to establish objectively reasonable police reliance on a nonfinal district-court opinion under active review.

    Carpenter v. State · Supreme Court of Florida · filed

    While the State relies on Pardo to argue the binding nature of the Smallwood I decision, it misapplies Pardo’s underlying premise from a different context that an opinion from a Florida district court of appeal is not final if it is still being reviewed by this Court. See Pardo, 596 So.2d at 666 (“This Court has stated that ‘[t]he decisions of the district courts of appeal represent the law of Florida unless and until they are overruled by this Court.’ ” (emphasis added)). In fact, the rule announced in Pardo was not designed or intended to describe the parameters of Fourth Amendment search and seizure law, especially for a case pending review in this Court; rather, it was a rule geared toward promoting judicial convenience in Florida’s uniquely constructed judicial system.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Pardo v. State and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace