248 So. 2d 692 - Wilcox v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2013 · most notably State v. Roman (1998), State v. Anderson (1989)
25 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 Alvarez v. State · Armstrong v. United-states
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A comparison of the amended information with the original indicates that the amended information charges a totally different crime than that charged in the original information.” * * * * * * “The filing of an amended information which purports to be a complete restatement of an offense has the effect of vitiating the original information as fully as though it had been formally dismissed by order of court. See Alvarez v. State [ 157 Fla. 254 , 25 So.2d 661 ] supra, and Armstrong v. United States, 9 Cir. 1926, 16 F.2d 62 . Consequently when the state announced its intent to abandon the amended information and secured an order permitting same, the state was left without a charge against the defendant, and the trial court erred in requiring the defendant to proceed to trial without the filing of a new information and compliance with all procedural steps that would be pertinent to an original information. “We cannot sanction the procedure that was here followed as harmless error. Aside from the theoretical difficulty in holding that the withdrawal of the amended information ‘revives’ the original information, the procedure here employed contains a serious potential for the imposition of surprise and the consequent denial of a fair trial.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pepperel v. State
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.