Evidence Center · Case Law
A case is quoted here only when we hold the court's own bytes.
The discipline, stated plainly: an opinion enters this register only after its OFFICIAL-publisher PDF is fetched twice byte-identical, SHA-256 hash-pinned, and every quoted passage verified inside the extracted text. A candidate that cannot be pinned that way is REFUSED, on the record, with the reason shown below — even when the case is real and lawyers cite it every day through their own tools. FamilyLawGPS is not a citator: nothing here tracks later history, and verified entries speak only as of their retrieval date.
Wired to the law it implements
Retrieved live from the source-locked corpus — never generated.
Verified opinions (0)
None yet — and that is the discipline working, not a gap being hidden. Every candidate attempted so far is listed below with the reason it could not be pinned. The lane stands ready: the day an official-publisher PDF exists for a candidate, it is fetched twice, hash-pinned, needle-verified, and appears here with its quotes.
Refused candidates (4)
Candidate citations below are IDENTIFIERS for finding these cases in research tools — not verified citations. Each entry states why it could not be pinned.
O'Brien v. O'Brien
Refused 2026-08-03899 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) · No. 5D03-3484 (candidate identifier)
Interspousal electronic interception — whether communications a spouse captured with monitoring software were admissible in the dissolution case. The reason the Recording & Consent page routes to counsel before anyone offers a recording.
Why it is not quoted here: The official publishers' current portals do not serve a pinnable PDF for this docket (the Supreme Court portal's opinion search returns no results for pre-platform-era case numbers, and the retired district-court sites' archives are not reachable at an official URL). CourtListener holds the text but is a discovery aid — never a pinned source. The candidate re-enters the lane the day official bytes exist.
In re: Amendments to the Florida Evidence Code
Refused 2026-08-03278 So. 3d 551 (Fla. 2019) · No. SC19-107 (candidate identifier)
The expert-testimony standard's adoption history — context for why the expert gate routes to counsel rather than rendering as consumer education.
Why it is not quoted here: The official publishers' current portals do not serve a pinnable PDF for this docket (the Supreme Court portal's opinion search returns no results for pre-platform-era case numbers, and the retired district-court sites' archives are not reachable at an official URL). CourtListener holds the text but is a discovery aid — never a pinned source. The candidate re-enters the lane the day official bytes exist.
Walker v. Harley-Anderson
Refused 2026-08-05301 So. 3d 299 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (candidate identifier)
Authentication of text messages — the showings courts discuss for tying messages to their claimed sender. The Navigator's text-messages page teaches the same gate from the statute alone.
Why it is not quoted here: Re-attempted 2026-08-05 under the recent-first strategy, with partial progress on the record: the Fourth District's current archive DOES serve opinion PDFs for this docket's era (a dated release view listed same-day opinions with working flcourts-media.flcourts.gov links), so the pre-platform-era premise no longer covers this candidate. What still blocks pinning: the archive's docket-targeted retrieval runs through an interactive search widget this lane's automation could not drive to the specific case, and the direct PDF URL requires a portal-assigned numeric download id that cannot be derived from the case number. The candidate re-enters the lane the day a direct official URL for its opinion PDF is in hand.
State v. Townsend
Refused 2026-08-03635 So. 2d 949 (Fla. 1994) (candidate identifier)
The child-victim hearsay exception's reliability analysis under § 90.803(23) — the exception the Evidence Code itself conditions on trustworthiness findings.
Why it is not quoted here: The official publishers' current portals do not serve a pinnable PDF for this docket (the Supreme Court portal's opinion search returns no results for pre-platform-era case numbers, and the retired district-court sites' archives are not reachable at an official URL). CourtListener holds the text but is a discovery aid — never a pinned source. The candidate re-enters the lane the day official bytes exist.
Queued case families (5)
The issue families this register intends to cover, shown as the gaps they are. No case is named here until its bytes are pinned — a family leaves this queue only when a candidate VERIFIES; refusals never empty it.
Interspousal recording & interception admissibility
The consent page's flagship question — what happens when a spouse records a spouse. The statutes are quoted verbatim on the Recording & Consent page; no opinion is quoted until pinned.
No verified opinion yet
Child-statement reliability under the § 90.803(23) exception
The exception's own trustworthiness conditions, applied — the child-evidence overlay teaches the statute's terms; the case gloss stays with counsel until bytes are pinned.
No verified opinion yet
Text & social-media authentication showings
The Navigator's core gate. One candidate in this family sits refused below with its current, specific reason.
No verified opinion yet
Originals, duplicates & the no-original grounds
The screenshot-versus-the-phone fights — Article X whole is taught from the statutes on the best-evidence page.
No verified opinion yet
Preservation of error in family appeals
Definitive rulings, offers of proof, and the harmless-error standard — the Preserving the Record page carries the statutes' own words.
No verified opinion yet
What this means for your case
Case law exists on recordings, text-message authentication, and child hearsay — your lawyer reaches it through professional research tools with citator treatment this platform does not provide. The statutes themselves are here, verbatim and hash-verified: the Evidence Code and the Five Gates teach the rules; counsel applies the cases.
Legal information, not legal advice.