Motion For Severance

308 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Sittenfeld v. Tobriner
  459 F.2d 1137· D.C. Cir.· 1971-12-30
  The court held that appellants waived their claim for damages by settling the condemnation action without litigating the probability of rezoning, and that the Zoning Commission members were immune from suit for damages.
• Schawartzberg v. United States
  379 F.2d 551· 2d Cir.· 1967-05-22
  The court held that the appellant's motion to vacate his conviction was properly denied because he failed to raise the issue of severance timely and his claim of prejudice was unsupported.
• Robinson v. State
  194 So. 2d 29· Fla. 2d DCA· 1967-01-25
  Appellant Robinson was convicted of entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony and grand larceny. On appeal, he sought relief under Criminal Procedure Rule One, challenging the denial of a severance motion, the admission of photographs, and the validity of a search
• Rollins v. State
  179 So. 2d 377· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-10-15
  William Marrett Rollins appeals the denial of post-conviction relief following his conviction for first-degree murder. The Florida District Court of Appeal addresses five claims of constitutional and procedural error, including allegations of courtroom segregation, improper handc
• Bowler v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
  334 F.2d 202· 4th Cir.· 1964-06-10
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the failure to sever the joint trial and the admissibility of his statement due to psychological coercion warrants further inquiry.
• United States v. Gardzielewski
  125 F.2d 138· 7th Cir.· 1942-01-16
  The court held that there was substantial evidence to support the conviction and no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for severance or in admitting evidence.
• Pappas v. State
  92 Fla. 997· Fla.· 1926-11-29
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a conviction for receiving and concealing stolen property, finding that while some procedural irregularities may have occurred, they did not constitute prejudicial error and the evidence supported the jury's verdict.