393 So. 2d 492 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"A similar claim was rejected by the United States Supreme Court in Gryger v. Burke , 334 U.S. 728 , 68 S.Ct. 1256 , 92 L.Ed. 1683 . There the Supreme Court stated: "`Nor do we think the fact that one of the convictions that entered into the calculations by which petitioner became a fourth offender occurred before the Act was passed, makes the Act invalidly retroactive. . . . The sentence as a . . . habitual criminal is not to be viewed as either a new jeopardy or additional penalty for the earlier crimes. It is a stiffened penalty for the latest crime, which is considered to be an aggravated offense because a repetitive one.'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 398 So. 2d 376 - Green v. State

2. “does not punish the appellant for past conduct, but merely increases his punishment for his latest offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 435 So. 2d 190 - Tate v. State

3. “has not been unconstitutionally applied in a retroactive manner as to make it an ex post facto law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 398 So. 2d 393 - Johnson v. State