Larimore v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably 3 So. 3d 1067 - Valdes v. State (2009), 48 So. 3d 740 - Mendenhall v. State (2010)
3 federal appellate · 62 state decisions
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 Addington v. Texas · Kansas v. Hendricks · 604 So. 2d 452 - Forsythe v. Longboat Key Beach Erosion · 622 So. 2d 941 - Tripp v. State · 921 So. 2d 587 - Borden v. East-European Ins. Co.
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In this case Larimore’s entire resen-tencing was unlawful. Thus, we do not reach the question of whether section 394.9135, Florida Statutes, would allow the State to take steps to initiate a commitment proceeding against a person who while in lawful custody obtains an order for immediate release for any reason. That issue is not before us.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“statute should be interpreted to give effect to every clause in it, and to accord meaning and harmony to all of its parts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]hen the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning ... the statute must be given its plain and obvious meaning. Further, we are without power to construe an unambiguous statute in a way which would extend, modify, or limit, its express terms or its reasonable and obvious implications. To do so would be an abrogation of legislative power. A related principle is that when a court interprets a statute, it must give full effect to all statutory provisions. Courts should avoid readings that would render part of a statute meaningless.”
2 later decisions 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.