Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 152 SO2D 731 - Schneider v. State

Schneider v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
October 1988
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 1988

7 state decisions

30196319701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on 128 So. 2d 132 - Jefferson v. State · Nelson v. State · Sigsbee 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We are unable to follow appellant’s argument that the court was obligated to define to the jury the offense of larceny or ‘other enumerated offenses which could, under the facts of the case, constitute lesser offenses.’ The record does not reveal any request for definitions of lesser offenses and the statute, Sec. 782.04, Florida Statutes 1961, F.S.A., does not enumerate any crimes during the commission of which a homicide shall constitute murder in the first degree except arson, rape, robbery, burglary, crime against nature and kidnaping. Homicide when committed by one engaged in any other felony is murder in the third degree, but we will not explore every facet of the facts we have recounted to determine whether or not some element of some felony other than the ones detailed was present, and we think there was no occasion for the trial judge to do so. “The appellant mentions only one of these other offenses, larceny, but it is obvious to us that if, when appellant dispatched Hendry, he intended to take his car he was attempting to commit robbery, not larceny.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““After these facts had been related the court conducted an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding a confession by the appellant. There was no charge that it was induced by fear, coercion or promise of reward; on the contrary, it was conceded by' counsel for the appellant that it was freely and voluntarily given. “Before making his statement the appellant was fully advised of his right to speak or to decline and warned that anything he said could be used against him in the event of his trial for the homicide of Roger S. Hendry the preceding evening.””
    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.