Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 320 So. 2d 832 - Roberts v. State

320 So. 2d 832 - Roberts v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
May 1997
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 1997

9 state decisions

60197519801990decided

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 · 92 So. 2d 259 - Long v. State · 308 So. 2d 569 - O'NEAL v. State · 292 So. 2d 64 - Skov v. State · Isaac 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The information charged three elements, to wit: unlawful breaking, unlawful entry and the intent to commit petit larceny. The jury found appellant guilty of two of the three elements set forth in the accusatory pleading by finding that he had made an unlawful entry with intent to commit petit larceny. These two elements constitute a crime just as surely as did the three elements charged. By all standards entering without breaking seems to meet the definition of a category (3) necessarily included offense to breaking and entering under Brown v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 377."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The general rule is where an offense may be committed in various ways, the evidence must establish it to have been committed in the manner charged in the indictment. The Statute provides a penalty for acts in the disjunctive. The indictment or information may have alleged them in the conjunctive and proof of one would have sufficed but if one of the state of facts is alleged, it cannot be established by proof of the other.”
    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.