Case Citator › Gaskin v. State

Gaskin v. State

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

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Citation
737 So. 2d 509
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
31 of 31
Citing cases (total)
31
Treatment dates
2004
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Gaskin v. State was overruled in part: all 31 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below. The Supreme Court of Florida withdrew one part of Gaskin’s footnote about pleading the substance and availability of a prospective witness’s testimony.
More on how this was screened

Its rules on timely postconviction amendments and evidentiary hearings continue to be applied.

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.

31 later cases cite Gaskin v. State; 31 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 Gaskin 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

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court of Florida receded from Gaskin’s footnote insofar as it said a postconviction motion need not allege what a prospective witness would have testified to or whether the witness was available.

    Nelson v. State · Supreme Court of Florida · filed

    As noted by the parties in this case, in Gaskin v. State, 737 So.2d 509, 514 n. 10 (Fla.1999), this Court stated in a footnote that a defendant asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call certain witnesses is not required under rule 3.850(c) to allege the names of witnesses, the substance of their testimony, or their availability to testify at trial.[2] This statement was overbroad in respect to the requirement to plead what a witness's testimony would have been and the witness's availability to have testified at trial. A review of our decisions with respect to this issue show that this Court did not intend to overrule the decisions of the First, Third, and Fourth Districts. To the extent that the footnote in Gaskin is inconsistent with this opinion, we recede from it.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Gaskin 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