Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 262 So. 2d 902 - Cole v. State

262 So. 2d 902 - Cole v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
states following
February 2002
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently February 2002

20 state decisions

2001972198019902000decided

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 Brown v. State · Castle v. United States · Chavigny v. State · Infante v. State · Chavigny 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The several sentences imposed were within the range authorized by law respectively for the offenses involved (§ 813.011 Fla.Stat., F.S.A. for robbery; § 784.06 (with § 782.04) for assault with intent to commit murder.) Validity of the statutes providing for such sentences was not challenged by appellant. The fact that a sentence imposed upon conviction for an offense is for the maximum provided therefor by law furnishes no basis to hold it is cruel and unusual punishment. Brown v. State, 152 Fla. 853 , 13 So.2d 458 ; Chavigny v. State, Fla.App.1959, 112 So.2d 910, 915 ; Castle v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 399 F.2d 642, 652 . Where a sentence is in conformity to the law, it is not subject to question on appeal as to excessiveness on the basis of its relation to the circumstances of the case. Chavigny v. State, supra, Infante v. State, Fla.App.1967, 197 So.2d 542, 544 .””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Not only were the sentences imposed expressly provided for by law, but the facts of the case were not such as to invite leniency in sentencing. The conviction of the defendant necessarily implies the jury found the facts to be as indicated by the state’s evidence. Thereby it was shown the defendant hijacked a truck at gunpoint, pistol whipped the driver and threw him out of the truck while travelling at thirty miles per hour, and that when about to be apprehended, he fired several shots at two police officers, one at close range. Cole v. State, 262 So.2d 902, 905 (Fla. 3d Dist.Ct.App. 1972).”
    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.