Love v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 191 So. 3d 406 - Sidney Norvil, Jr. v. State of Florida · Nusspickel v. State · 212 So. 3d 494 - Fernandez v. State · 964 So. 2d 884 - Gray v. State · 30 So. 3d 588 - MIRUTIL 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“incidents of misconduct occurring after the charged offense, some of which did not result in charges or arrests, [are] impermissible sentencing factors.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he State bears the burden to show from the record as a whole that the trial court did not consider impermissible factors in rendering its sentence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The burden is on the State to show that the trial court did not rely on the improper factor in imposing the sentence where it appears that the trial court may have done so.”
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.