361 So. 2d 144 - Carroll v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

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

1. ““The discretion of the legislature when exercised for the public welfare in selecting the subjects of police regulations and in determining the nature and extent of such regulation is limited only by the requirements of fundamental law that the regulations shall not invade private rights secured by the Constitution.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Vitelli · 492 So. 2d 1032 - Dept. of Ins. v. Dade Cty. Consumer Adv.

2. “(1) None of the provisions of this chapter shall be construed to prohibit or prevent nonprofit or veterans’ organizations engaged in charitable, civic, community, benevolent, religious or scholastic works or other similar activities, which organizations have been in existence for a period of 3 years or more from conducting bingo games or guest games, provided that the entire proceeds derived from the conduct of such games shall be donated by such organizations to the endeavors mentioned above. In no case shall the proceeds from the conduct of such games be used for any other purpose whatsoever. (2) If an organization is not engaged in efforts of the type set out above, its right to conduct bingo or guest games hereunder shall be conditioned upon the return of all the proceeds from such games to the players in the form of prizes. If at the conclusion of play on any day during which bingo or guest is allowed to be played under this section there remain proceeds which have not been paid out as prizes, the nonprofit organization conducting the game shall at the next scheduled day of play conduct bingo or guest games without any charge to the players and shall continue to do so until the proceeds carried over from the previous days played have been exhausted. This provision in no way extends the limitation on the number of prize or jackpot games allowed in one night as provided for in subsection (4). (3) The number of days during which such organizations as are authorized hereunde”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Madar v. State · Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Butterworth

3. “The Constitution of Florida is a limitation of power, and while the legislature cannot legalize any gambling device that would in effect amount to a lottery, it has inherent power to regulate or to prohibit any and all other forms of gambling. Lee v. City of Miami, 121 Fla. 93 , 163 So. 486, 490 (1935). In exercising this power to regulate, the legislature, in its wisdom, has seen fit to permit bingo as a form of recreation, and at the same time, has allowed worthy organizations to receive the benefits.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Vitelli