Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 257 So. 2d 21 - Franklin v. State

257 So. 2d 21 - Franklin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Wainwright v. Stone (1973), Adams v. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Et Al. (1986)

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 53 state decisions

400197119801990200020102020decided

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 Watkins v. United States · Raley v. Ohio · Cline v. Frink Dairy Co. · Brock v. Hardie · Locklin v. Pridgeon

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

  1. “abominable and detestable crime against nature”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"At this point, however, we interpose that the supreme court in Franklin and Joyce, supra, considered that F.S. § 800.02, F.S.A., which condemns as a misdemeanor any `unnatural and lascivious act with another person,' is constitutional. It follows that that court must deem this statute, unlike § 800.01, supra, to be quite clear and certain, and it must further follow that it thinks it to be set forth in language which is relevant to today's society. "Furthermore, the court there held that an `unnatural and lascivious act with another person' was, under the evidence in those cases, a lesser included offense within the `abominable and detestable crime against nature' offense charged. Whereupon, the court reversed the judgments of guilty of the higher offenses and remanded the causes with instructions to enter judgments of guilty of the lesser offense and to impose sentence accordingly. "We pursue the same course. A careful reading of the record discloses that not only did the evidence support a finding of guilty of the common law offense of copulation per anus, formerly thought condemned by the now voided F.S. § 800.01, F.S.A., but it is more than sufficient to support a finding of guilty to the unnatural and lascivious act now clearly and certainly condemned by F.S. § 800.02, F.S.A. Additionally, the defendant requested, and received a jury instruction of such lesser offense at trial."”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"Whoever commits any unnatural and lascivious act with another person [shall be punished as a misdemeanor]."”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.