State v. Schlabach’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
March 2011
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 511 So. 2d 688 - Grosse v. State · 927 So. 2d 1084 - Anthony v. State · State v. Blue · 972 So. 2d 307 - Childers v. State · Hussey v. State
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This court has adopted the view that where a motion to mitigate is timely filed, but no hearing is scheduled and no action is taken within sixty days after imposition of sentence, the trial court loses jurisdiction to do so. Hussey v. State, 739 So.2d 123, 124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (citing Grosse v. State, 511 So.2d 688 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); see also State v. Grandstaff, 927 So.2d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)) (“This rule has been construed to require reduction or modification within the sixty-day period, irrespective of the timeliness of a motion.”) Here, because no hearing was scheduled and no action was taken within the sixty day period, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.