427 So. 2d 166 - State v. Dunmann’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2007 · most notably 498 So. 2d 863 - Whitehead v. State (1986), 486 So. 2d 623 - Rosen v. Marlin (1986)
1 federal appellate · 41 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 American States Insurance v. Piasecki · 362 So. 2d 10 - State v. Allen · State v. Medlin · 394 So. 2d 979 - Bell v. State · Sparkman v. State ex rel. Bank of Ybor City
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is the intent to steal, not the intent to permanently deprive an owner of his property.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“While statutes may be impliedly as well as expressly repealed, yet the enactment of a statute does not operate to repeal by implication prior statutes unless such is clearly the legislative intent. An intent to repeal prior statutes or portions thereof may be made apparent when there is a positive and irreconcilable repugnancy between the provisions of a later enactment and those of prior existing statutes. But the mere fact that a later statute relates to matters covered in whole or in part by a prior statute does not cause the repeal of the older statute. If the two may operate upon the same subject without positive inconsistency or repugnancy in their practical effect and consequences, they should each be given the effect designed for them unless a contrary intent clearly appears.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In Bell v. State, 394 So.2d 979 (Fla.1981), the third district certified a question regarding section 812.13, Florida Statutes (1975), the robbery statute, in which that district court equated the intent to permanently deprive an owner of his property to the specific intent required by section 812.13. By relying on Bell and Allen , several district courts have been led to the opposite conclusion from what we reach in this opinion. See, e.g., Baxley; Dunmann; Faison; Hilty. While section 812.13 deals with a similar subject, we do not find that chapter 77-342 had an impact on that section. By the same token section 812.13 has no impact on the sections involved in this opinion. Therefore, we find Bell to have no effect on the instant case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Daniels v. State
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.