Watt v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · 993 So. 2d 952 - Yisrael v. State · 450 So. 2d 855 - State v. Robarge · 917 So. 2d 953 - Essex v. State · 852 So. 2d 335 - Kimbrough 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the terms of the concealed weapon/firearm statute, the state does not have the burden of proving the absence of a license as an element of the crime. Rather, proof of a license is pertinent only as an affirmative defense. Generally, for a statutory exception, such as a license, to constitute a defense under Florida law, the exception “must be in a clause subsequent to the enacting clause of a statute.”. ... The license defense is in the subsequent clause.... As such, it is an affirmative defense, not an element of the crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Powell v. Tompkins“(2) A person who carries a concealed firearm on or about his or her person commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. (3) This section does not apply to a person licensed to carry a concealed weapon or a concealed firearm pursuant to the provisions of s. 790.06.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. MacKey v. State
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.