Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 402 SO2D 386 - State v. Werner

State v. Werner’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
March 1999
most recently cited

32 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Santobello v. New York · Bordenkircher v. Hayes · 395 So. 2d 514 - State v. Benitez · 400 So. 2d 762 - State v. Yu

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

  1. “(3) The state attorney may move the sentencing court to reduce or suspend the sentence of any person who is convicted of a violation of this section and who provides substantial assistance in the identification, arrest, or conviction of any of his accomplices, accessories, co-conspirators, or principals... . The judge hearing the motion may reduce or suspend the sentence if he finds that the defendant rendered such substantial assistance.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “in the foregoing statute is not unconstitutionally vague in vesting the prosecutor with unbridled discretion when engaging in so-called”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Additionally, section 893.135 does not directly abrogate the substantive rules of law governing plea bargaining and plea arrangements, and these rules should be followed, to the extent they can in a post-conviction context, by the parties and the trial judge. Good faith compliance with rules governing the plea bargaining process will prevent prosecutorial overreaching and alleviate any possible constitutional infirmities which might plague the unique procedure established by subsection (3). (footnote omitted)”
    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.