Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 360 So. 2d 417 - Williams v. Smith

360 So. 2d 417 - Williams v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
states following
October 2012
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2012

13 state decisions

5019781980199020002010decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2 · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)

Relies on 125 So. 2d 846 - Gray v. Bryant · State Ex Rel. City of Fulton v. Smith · People v. Carroll · In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 77-19 · City of Shawnee v. Williamson

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A public office is a public trust. The people shall have the right to secure and sustain that trust against abuse. To assure this right: [[Image here]] (d) Any public officer or employee who is convicted of a felony involving a breach of public trust shall be subject to forfeiture of rights and privileges under a public retirement system or pension plan in such manner as may be provided by law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. [Note 7: See Art. II, s 8(a), Fla. Const.] They did not follow that course. Instead, they clearly deferred forfeiture to”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In analyzing a constitutional amendment adopted by initiative rather than by legislative or constitution revision commission vote, the intent of the framers should be accorded less significance than the intent of the voters as evidenced by materials they had available as predicate for their collective decision.”
    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.