Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 224 SO2D 291 - State v. Potter

State v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
October 1979
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Newcomb v. Roarty · Prigger v. Kingery · Werner v. Cace · Hunter v. Flowers · Stark v. Malcom

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

  1. “* * * * sfi * “[2] Rule 4.6, Florida Appellate Rules, is not a substitute for appeal. * * * This court has held that questions already ruled on below cannot be certified here. * * * We have also held that Rule 4.6 must be strictly construed in order to avoid encroachment on the full and proper exercise of jurisdiction by the trial judges. * * *” ******”
    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.