Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 425 So. 2d 36 - Baker v. State

425 So. 2d 36 - Baker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
3
states following
October 2006
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 2006 · most notably State v. Baker (1984), State v. Weller (1991)

37 state decisions

310198219902000decided

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 Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · Sibron v. State of New York Peters

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

  1. “"two statutory offenses are essentially independent and distinct if each offense can possibly be committed without necessarily committing the other offense. This is just a poor way of saying that the test is an abstract test and that two statutory offenses are not `the same offense' if each statutory offense has at least one constituent element that the other does not."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “the nonconstitutional right of . . . giving the jury an opportunity to find the accused guilty of an offense lesser in severity of punishment than that with which he was charged”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “Section 919.16, [sic] [5] makes provision for offenses which are necessarily included in the offense charged. It is applicable to that group of offenses which includes lesser offenses as essential elements. This suggests a further type of "lesser included" situation. This fourth category comprehends those offenses which may or may not be included in the offense charged, depending upon, (a) the accusatory pleading, and (b) the evidence at the trial. In this category, the trial judge must examine the information to determine whether it alleges all of the elements of a lesser offense, albeit such lesser offense is not an essential ingredient of the major offense alleged. If the accusation is present, then the judge must determine from the evidence whether it supports the allegation of the lesser included offense. If the allegata and probata are present then there should be a charge on the lesser offense.”
    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.