306 So. 2d 104 - Negron v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
100 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably State v. Golding (1989), 852 So. 2d 226 - FB v. State (2003)
100 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 Ex Rel. Butler v. Cullen · 245 So. 2d 33 - In Re Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure · Todd v. State · Hicks v. State · Sullivan v. Lear
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Proof of the element of value is essential to a conviction for grand larceny and must be established by the State beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. In determining the value of property, proof thereof may be shown by such elements or facts affecting the question as may exist. Recourse may be had to the items of cost, as well as the utility and use of the property. The original market cost of the property, the manner in which it has been used, its general condition and quality, the percentage of depreciation since its purchase or construction are elements of proof to be submitted to the jury to aid it in ascertaining value in such cases”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]t least the evidence should have shown the retail prices of all the allegedly stolen items in order to clearly demonstrate their market value and a salability at the price near the time of the alleged theft.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When the continuance was granted and the time limitations set forth in the rule were no longer applicable, the trial judge was nevertheless required to grant petitioners a speedy trial. In the absence of the time limitations specified in the Speedy Trial rule, the right to a speedy trial is necessarily relative. It is consistent with delays and the question of whether a trial date affords petitioners a speedy trial must be determined in the light of the circumstances of the particular case as a matter of judicial discretion. The mere lapse of time before trial is not the only factor to be considered under such circumstances. Any unreasonable delay arising from the negligence of the prosecution without fault or consent by the accused violates the guaranty of a speedy trial.”
1 later decision 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.