Blanco v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 state decisions

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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When it is made to appear that a prosecuting officer has overstepped the bounds of that propriety and fairness which should characterize the conduct of a state's counsel in the prosecution of a criminal case, or where a prosecuting attorney's argument to the jury is undignified and intemperate, and contains aspersions, improper insinuations, and assertions of matters not in evidence, or consists of an appeal to prejudice or sympathy calculated to unduly influence a trial jury, the trial judge should not only sustain an objection at the time to such improper conduct when objection is offered, but should so affirmatively rebuke the offending prosecuting officer as to impress upon the jury the gross impropriety of being influenced by improper arguments. (e.s.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 431 So. 2d 1031 - Meade v. State · 411 So. 2d 235 - Harper v. State

2. ““ (3) It is sufficient for the purpose of describing a corporation to state the corporate name of such corporation, or any name or designation by which it has been or is known, or by which it may be identified, without an averment that the corporation is a corporation or that it was incorporated according to law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hardaman v. State

3. ““It is our conclusion that these several decisions have been placed at rest by section 114 of Chapter 19554, Acts of 1939, Laws of Fla. (commonly referred to as the Criminal Code) and sub-sections 2 and 3 thereof.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hardaman v. State