Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 255 So. 2d 675 - Chesebrough v. State

255 So. 2d 675 - Chesebrough v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
4
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 76 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 590 So. 2d 404 - Schmitt v. State (1991), Thomas v. State (1975)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 76 state decisions

35019711980199020002010decided

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 Griswold v. State of Connecticut · 245 So. 2d 225 - State v. Ashby · State v. Evans · Boles v. State · 150 So. 2d 281 - Peel 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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “an unlawful indulgence in lust, eager for sexual indulgence.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"It would be, of course, difficult or impossible to detail in a statute book all the acts which would constitute lewd and lascivious behavior, but there is a large body of case law on the meaning of the words `lewd' and `lascivious' (see, for instance, the numerous decisions under these words in Vols. 24 and 25 of Words and Phrases). Generally speaking, however, these words, when used in a statute to define an offense, usually have the same meaning, that is, an unlawful indulgence in lust, eager for sexual indulgence. See McKinley v. State, 33 Okla. Cr. 434 , 244 P. 208 . (emphasis added) "Our Supreme Court has had occasion to define these two words in their various forms in Luster v. State, 23 Fla. 339 , 2 So. 690 ; Pinson v. State, 28 Fla. 735 , 9 So. 706 ; Holton v. State, 28 Fla. 303 , 9 So. 716 ; Thomas v. State, 39 Fla. 437 , 22 So. 725 ; Penton v. State, 42 Fla. 560 , 28 So. 774 ; Whitehead v. State, 48 Fla. 64 , 37 So. 302 ; Faulkner v. State, 146 Fla. 769 , 1 So.2d 857 ; and Boles v. State, 158 Fla. 220 , 27 So.2d 293 ." (p. 57)”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"... It is well settled that a criminal statute is sufficiently certain, though it may use general terms, if the offense is so defined as to convey to a person of ordinary understanding an adequate description of the evil intended to be prohibited." (Emphasis supplied.) Chesebrough v. State, 255 So.2d 675 (Fla. 1971).”
    4 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.