182 So. 2d 252 - Casso v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is elementary that it is not every error that may be committed in the trial of a criminal case that will provide the basis for a reversal of the judgment; such error must be fundamental and prejudicial. Section 924.33, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides as follows: ‘No judgment shall be reversed unless the appellate court after an examination of all the appeal papers is of the opinion that error was commit-ed which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant. It shall not be presumed that error injuriously affected the substantial rights of the appellant.’ “Citing such statutory provision, the Supreme Court of Florida in Cornelius v. State, Fla.1950, 49 So.2d 332 , said: ‘This Court has specifically held that a reversal should not be ordered unless the error complained of was prejudicial or harmful to the substantial rights of the accused and that the introduction of improper or inadmissible evidence must be prejudicial in order to warrdnt a reversal.’ “Applying the foregoing tests to the instant case, it cannot be said that the remarks of the State Attorney to the jury, supra, were so damning and inflammatory as to vitiate the verdict of conviction rendered by the jury, especially in the light of the prompt actions of the trial Judge and of the prosecuting attorney immediately after said remarks were made.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 230 So. 2d 177 - Brown v. State

2. “"* * * [t]he arrest, with its consequent search and seizure, was legal. The arrest of suspected felons without a warrant is justified, and evidence obtained by search of their persons or effects upon the arrest, will not be suppressed, where the arresting officers had probable cause, in view of their prior investigation, to believe that such persons were then engaged in violating the law. And in determining whether the officers had such probable cause to believe that a felony was being committed so as to justify the arrest without warrant, sufficiency of the known facts on the part of the officers must be determined, not by an analysis of the effect of each known circumstance in isolation, but by a conclusion as to what a reasonable man, knowing all the facts which the officers knew from their prior investigation, would have believed under all the circumstances. Rogers v. State, 1947, 158 Fla. 582, 790 , 30 So.2d 625 . * * * * * * As an incident to an arrest made under these conditions, the arresting officer has the power, indeed it is his duty, to search the person so arrested and to seize anything found on his person or in his possession or under his control tending to show that such person is guilty of a violation of the law. Brown v. State, Fla. 1950, 46 So.2d 479 ." [3] (Emphasis supplied.)”

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

3. “"A person who, with intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property ... takes from the possession of the true owner ... by ... false representations or pretense ... any money ... is guilty of larceny."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 330 So. 2d 554 - State v. Oates