Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

123 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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t is within the province of the trial court to fix by sentence the punishment within the limits prescribed by statute.”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Howard v. State · 514 So. 2d 1079 - Booker v. State

2. “As has been stated, the information is substantially in the language of the statute. The information, however, goes further and charges that the beverage alleged to have been concealed was “moonshine whiskey.” Section 568.07, F.S.A., provides in effect that it is sufficient under the information charging violation of law in connection with intoxicating liquors to prove that the liquor was such as is generally known by certain names and, among others, the statute mentions “moonshine whiskey.” So it is that the description of the liquor involved in this case as moonshine whiskey was sufficient to advise the accused of the character of the commodity involved in this prosecu tion. It is a matter of common knowledge, of which this Court must take judicial cognizance, that that commodity known as moonshine whiskey is an alcoholic liquor manufactured without the protection of, and contrary to, law in respect to which no tax is either levied or may be collected. Therefore, it appears that the information charges that the accused “did unlawfully remove, deposit and conceal and were unlawfully concerned in the removing, depositing and concealing a beverage for and in respect whereof a tax is imposed by the Beverage Act of Florida.” The information did not stop here, however, but further averred “to-wit: four and one-half gallons more or less of moonshine whiskey with intent to defraud the State of Florida * * *.” Thus, the latter allegation of the information directly contradicted the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 6 Fla. Supp. 151 - State v. Ellis

3. ““In a prosecution under Section .562.32, Florida Statutes, for removing, •depositing and concealing a beverage -for or in respect whereof a tax would be imposed if such beverage were manufactured in accordance with the provisions of the Beverage Act, on which beverage said tax was not paid, with intent to defraud the State of Florida of such tax, should a verdict of guilty be upheld where it appears from the evidence that the beverage involved is ‘moonshine’ whiskey?””

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