Trushin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Notwithstanding that these issues are acknowledgedly raised for the first time on appeal, we consider their merits because a conviction for the violation of a facially invalid statute would constitute fundamental error.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Trushin v. State · 450 So. 2d 1212 - Alexander v. State

2. “1) Specifically exempting "food to be consumed at a political rally or meeting," even if provided with the intent to buy votes, from the provisions of the statute, makes the statute irrational, thereby violating the equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions; 2) The terms "anything of value," "corruptly," and "influence" are unconstitutionally vague; 3) Section 104.061(2) is unconstitutionally overbroad; 4) The trial court should have granted a judgment of acquittal because the state failed to prove Trushin's knowledge that any promisee was a registered voter, or that he offered "anything of value"; 5) Trushin's statement to the assistant state attorney was improperly allowed into evidence because the state failed to prove the corpus delicti by failing to show the letter was sent to a registered voter and by failing to competently introduce the contents of the letter, itself; and 6) Trushin has a right to closing argument which was denied.”

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

3. “On its face, and without the necessity of construing any ambiguity or judicially inserting any limiting qualifications, the statute is confined to non-protected, clearly criminal conduct. To repeat, it precludes giving or promising anything of value only when the defendant intends "thereby to buy [a] vote or to corruptly influence" the casting of a vote. Thus the statute, forbidding acts intended to condition another's vote upon the receipt of a personal benefit, is plainly and properly designed only to preserve the sanctity of the ballot.”

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