381 So. 2d 707 - Daniels v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2009
7 state decisions
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. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2518 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)
Relies on Katz v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · Alderman v. United States · Cooper v. State of California · Berger v. New York
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Governor, the Department of Legal Affairs, or any State Attorney may authorize an application to a judge of competent jurisdiction for, and such judge may grant in conformity with this chapter, an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications by the Department of [Criminal] Law Enforcement or any law enforcement agency of this state or any political subdivision thereof having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made, when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of the commission of the offense of murder, kidnapping, gambling (when the same is of an organized nature or carried on as a conspiracy in violation of the laws of this state), robbery, burglary, grand larceny, prostitution, criminal usury, abortion, bribery, extortion, dealing in narcotic drugs or other dangerous drugs, or any conspiracy to commit any violation of the laws of this state relating to the crimes specifically enumerated above.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 2516 (2) to make application for an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications cannot be construed to include an assistant state attorney. Daniels v. State, 381 So.2d 707, 715 (Fla.1st DCA 1979). Upon petition by the state for rehearing, the district court certified the following question: Does Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2516 , requiring application by the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Does Title 18 U.S.C. Section 2516 , requiring application by the "principal prosecuting attorney" for an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications, preclude the exercise of that power by a general class of prosecutors who are assistant state attorneys in Florida?”
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.