Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 188 So. 2d 300 - Silver v. State

188 So. 2d 300 - Silver v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
October 1996
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 1996 · most notably Steinhorst v. State (1982), In Re Beverly (1977)

26 state decisions

1801966197019801990decided

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 94 So. 2d 829 - Mariani v. Schleman · Lake v. Lake · 124 So. 2d 892 - Ross v. Florida Sun Life Insurance Company · 174 So. 2d 91 - Silver v. State · Northeast Polk County Hospital District v. Snively

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

  1. “Sanction of the maneuver attempted in this cause could, and probably would, result in much mischief, for example, a defendant could plead not guilty to an information, offer no challenge of the statute forming a basis for the formal charge then abide the verdict and adjudication hoping, no doubt, there would be a conclusion of not guilty. Then he could appeal and by assignment of error obscure any question of the validity of the act by assigning a general ground indistinctly relating to a ruling on a motion for a new trial which could “probably” embrace a challenge of constitutionality since it consisted of the charge that “the information did not state a crime * Going a step farther, the hypothetical defendant in a nebulous fashion on which the District Court of Appeal animadverted finally could inject there for the first time the constitutional question. Meanwhile the trial court would have been left far behind with never a chance to pass upon the constitutional issue. So the hypothetical defendant after losing his case in the District Court of Appeal could knock at the door of the Supreme Court and represent that the constitutional question so belatedly and nebulously raised by him had been “initially” decided by the District Court of Appeal. Were he to succeed he would have had two appeals instead of the one to which we have said he was entitled, Lake v. Lake, 103 So.2d 639 , Fla.1958. The attempt is, we apprehend, ingenious but it is not conductive to sound practice, and”
    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.