Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 430 SO2D 444 - State v. Fitzpatrick

State v. Fitzpatrick’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
March 2000
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 2000

4 state decisions

20198319902000decided

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 393 So. 2d 540 - Tascano v. State · Sawyer v. State of Florida · 426 So. 2d 12 - State v. King · King 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “There is good reason for requiring defendants to register their objections with the trial court. A defendant should not be allowed to subject himself to a court's jurisdiction and defend his case in hope of an acquittal and then, if convicted, challenge the court's jurisdiction on the basis of a defect that could have been easily remedied if it had been brought to the court's attention earlier. Neither the common law nor our statutes favor allowing a defendant to use the resources of the court and then wait until the last minute to unravel the whole proceeding. Sawyer v. State, 94 Fla. 60 , 113 So. 736 (1927). In this case, if the court had realized that respondent had been improperly charged by an indictment, the defect could have been remedied quite easily by the filing of an information under section 39.04(2)(e)4, or the transfer of the case to the juvenile division.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “DOES AN INDICTMENT FOR AN OFFENSE NOT PUNISHABLE BY DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT GIVE THE CIRCUIT COURT JURISDICTION TO TRY A MINOR WHO IS BELOW THE AGE OF 16 YEARS?”
    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.