408 So. 2d 1239 - State v. Grey’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 945 So. 2d 277 - State v. Shumaker (2006), State v. Davis (1984)
56 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
Relies on Michel v. United States · Coker v. Georgia · State v. Sepulvado · 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · 277 So. 2d 126 - State v. Prieur
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]vidence of other drug sales is of great probative value in establishing intent to distribute when it is an essential element of the crime charged.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The trial judge need not articulate every aggravating and mitigating circumstance; however, the record must reflect that he adequately considered the guidelines enumerated in C.Cr.P. 894.1." 408 So.2d at 1243 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The Court finds under Article 894.1, which is the sentence guidelines under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following finding: That there is an undue risk, that during a period of any suspended sentence of probation, that you will commit another crime. The Court finds that you are in need of correctional treatment, and a custodial environment that can be provided most effectively by your commitment to an institution. The Court finds further, that a lesser sentence which could possibly be imposed will deprecate the seriousness of your crime, and makes the following further findings. First of all, that while your conduct did not cause, or threaten to cause, serious physical harm, that your conduct in this particular case has been the culmination of a long period of rather questionable activity, during which you caused serious financial losses to numerous people. The Court finds that your conduct did contemplate serious criminal matters. The Court finds there are absolutely no mitigating or extenuating circumstances to justify your activities.””
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.