443 So. 2d 236 - Rodriquez v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 state decisions

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

1. “Analysis to Determine if there is a Different Factual Basis for Two Prosecutions for `The Same Offense'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 471 So. 2d 160 - Barnhill v. State · 462 So. 2d 1161 - Akins v. State

2. “Analysis of the Elements of Two Statutory Offenses to Determine Substantive Difference or Sameness”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 471 So. 2d 160 - Barnhill v. State · 462 So. 2d 1161 - Akins v. State

3. “The majority opinion construes the federal cases cited to mean that whether or not two criminal charges alleging the violation of two statutory offenses relate, in substance, legally and factually, to "the same offense" within constitutional contemplation is not longer a matter of judicial interpretation of the constitutional double jeopardy clause based on analysis of the elements of the statutory offenses and the facts upon which multiple criminal charges are based but is now only a matter of judicial interpretation of the intent of the legislature to be gleaned from statutes relating to penalties and punishment. The dissent cannot agree with this view.[11] [11] Although legislative intent controls as to the elements of offenses and as to separate or accumulative punishment for violation of multiple crimes it has absolutely nothing to do with interpretation of the double jeopardy clauses of the state and federal constitutions or as to the judicial analysis involved in such interpretation. Any suggestion that judicial analysis of offenses in criminal charges for constitutional purposes is subject to, or should be controlled by, the intent of the legislature is to utterly disregard the separation of powers doctrine upon which our constitutional form of government was founded and to totally abdicate the high duty of the judiciary to uphold individual constitutional rights of the people safe from control or encroachment of the government.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 500 So. 2d 120 - State v. Rodriquez