Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 401 So. 2d 794 - Ex Parte Wilcox

401 So. 2d 794 - Ex Parte Wilcox’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
August 2006
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 2006

15 state decisions

120198119902000decided

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 Mayo v. State · 360 So. 2d 728 - Davidson v. State · 363 So. 2d 1001 - Deason v. State · Ransom v. State · 373 So. 2d 1221 - Jones v. State

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

  1. “"Defendant's right not to be convicted of both [offenses] can be safeguarded by requesting that the jury be instructed to specify the count under which they find the defendant guilty, and in situations where no evidence is presented as to a particular count, a directed verdict can be requested as to that count."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘Where two distinct felonies are charged in different counts, it is not a matter of legal right pertaining to the accused, that the State should be compelled to elect for which one of the offenses it will prosecute; nor will the court compel such election, where the two counts are joined, in good faith, for the purpose of meeting a single offense. It is a practice sanctioned by common custom, and by the law, to charge a felony in different ways, in different counts of the indictment, so as to provide for the different phases which the evidence may present upon the trial; and where such is the bona fide purpose of the joinder of counts, the court never exercises its power of quashing the indictment, or compelling an election.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““When an accused is charged in a two-count indictment with both larceny and buying, receiving or concealing stolen property, and the property in question is the same, the jury should be instructed to specify under which count they find the accused guilty _ Since an accused cannot be found guilty of both ... he is guilty, if at all, of either one or the other.””
    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.