Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 377 So. 2d 682 - Scullock v. State

377 So. 2d 682 - Scullock v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
February 2010
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2010

11 state decisions

5019791980199020002010decided

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 Roth v. United States · Barrett v. United States · 262 So. 2d 881 - Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. Powell · 346 So. 2d 538 - State v. Dye · 343 So. 2d 9 - State v. Bales

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

  1. “sufficiently definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding... .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]here is a presumption of constitutionality inherent in any statutory analysis.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The appellant, while armed or having the immediate ability to be armed, threatened to shoot police officers who were present and attempting to perform a lawful arrest. By his conduct appellant proposed or threatened to inflict violent harm to the officers, indicating a willingness and having the capacity to achieve that result. We find that a person of ordinary understanding and intelligence would find this conduct to be prohibited by section 843.01.”
    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.