Breitberg v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
April 2016
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 911 So. 2d 229 - King v. State · 575 So. 2d 237 - Dailey v. State · 990 So. 2d 494 - Saintelien v. State · Kimmel v. State · Saintelien 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e conclude that the filing of the notice of appeal of the conviction and sentence did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to enter the sexual predator designation order. “The general rule is that an appeal 'of an order divests the .trial court of jurisdiction except to those matters which do not interfere with the power of the appellate court to determine the issues which are on appeal.” Kimmel v. State, 629 So.2d 1110, 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Because the sexu al predator designation is not a sentence at all, it would not interfere with the power of the appellate court to dispose of issues related to appellant’s conviction and sentence. The trial court was not divested of jurisdiction to consider the issue even after the filing of an appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Escobar v. State
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.