443 So. 2d 471 - State v. Dukes’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2009
6 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 419 So. 2d 1194 - Thomas v. Ratiner · Wood v. State · 352 So. 2d 55 - State v. Bassham · 411 So. 2d 889 - Holmes v. Leffler · State Ex Rel. Williams v. Eastmoore
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This court further explained: This court has held that the time for trial is not interrupted merely because the defendant is incarcerated elsewhere in the state during the speedy trial period and such incarceration does not preclude him from asserting his speedy trial rights. Holmes v. Leffler, 411 So.2d 889 (Fla. 5th DCA), pet. rev. denied, State v. Holmes, 419 So.2d 1200 (Fla.1982). The 1980 amendment to Rule 3.191(a)(1), effective January 1, 1981, makes it clear that ‘[a] person charged with a crime is entitled to the benefits of this Rule [although] such person is in custody in a jail or correctional institution of this state or a political subdivision thereof.’ See also, State v. Yero, 377 So.2d 45 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Ramos v. Amidon, 263 So.2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972). Knowing that Dukes had been taken into custody on the Volusia warrants, when it became clear that Brevard County was not going to allow Dukes to be returned to Volusia until the Brevard charges were disposed of, Volusia could have and should have protected its prosecution rights by applying for an extension of speedy trial because of the existence of this exceptional circumstance. [Lewis v. State, 357 So.2d 725 (Fla.1978)].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In the case before us, the documentary evidence as well as the testimony presented to the trial court at the hearing on. the motion for discharge show without dispute that Dukes was arrested and taken into custody on April 23, 1982, on the basis of the Volusia County warrants. This arrest triggered the start of the 180-day speedy trial time and nothing intervened here to stop it. The trial court correctly granted the motion for discharge.”
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.