305 So. 2d 514 - State v. James’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably 719 So. 2d 610 - State v. Owens (1998), 669 So. 2d 667 - State v. Black (1996)
88 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 United States v. Wade · Ashe v. Swenson · Kirby v. Illinois · State v. Didier · State v. Richmond
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * [W]here in fact an accused has been fairly informed of the charge against him by the indictment and has not been prejudiced by surprise or lack of notice, the technical sufficiency of the indictment may not be questioned after conviction where, as here, no objection was raised to it prior to the verdict and where, without unfairness, the accused may be protected against further prosecution for any offense or offenses charged by it through examination of the pleadings and the evidence in the instant prosecution.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Barclay · State v. Morris“be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Randolph · State v. Malmay““We note that we do not have before us an indictment that does not, by any reasonable construction, charge the offense for which the defendant is convicted. Nor do we here have an offense charged so imprecisely or uncertainly that there is any real doubt, both for purposes of pre-trial notice as well as for subsequent double jeopardy purposes, of the crime-transaction against which the defendant had to defend. The indictment here charged the defendant with a robbery on a certain date and at a certain premises. In the lack of other specificity, the indictment (broadly construed) charges the robbery of the person or persons at the premises.””
2 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.