298 So. 2d 376 - State v. Beamon’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently June 1998 · most notably 425 So. 2d 36 - Baker v. State (1982), 397 So. 2d 288 - Hoffman v. State (1981)
43 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 State v. Bowden · Duncan v. Tennessee · Lowe v. State · Middleton v. State · Jones v. Giller
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"When there is a bill of particulars, and when it specifies only an exact date upon which the offense occurred, the prosecution is limited, if objection be made, to proof of an offense occurring on that date and no other under that particular Information; ... Nor may the State remedy an erroneous date specified in the bill of particulars, if there is an objection, by amending it to conform to the evidence adduced after presentation of the evidence." at 378, 379.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Stang v. State · Taylor v. State“It is the defendant — not the State — • who is estopped. The defendant is es-topped by virtue of his inconsistent positions in first claiming as a basis for acquittal the materiality of the date and then contending on the new information that the actual, different date of the alleged offense is immaterial now, so that whatever the date of the alleged offense he was acquitted of it in the first trial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) [T]here was a former prosecution in the same state for the same offense ; (2) that the same person was in jeopardy on the first prosecution; (3) that the parties are identical in the same prosecution; and (4) that the particular offense on the prosecution of which the jeopardy attached was such an offense as to constitute a bar.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mayor · State v. Katz
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.