State v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Reference to Drug Abuse Program. — When any person, including any juvenile, has been charged with or convicted of a violation of any provision of chapter 893, or of a violation of any law committed under the influence of a controlled substance, the court, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Corrections, or Parole and Probation Commission, whichever has jurisdiction over that person, may in its discretion require the person charged or convicted to participate in a drug rehabilitation program licensed by the department under the provisions of this chapter. If referred by the court, said referral may be in lieu of, or in addition to, final adjudication, imposition of any penalty or sentence, or any other similar action. If the accused so desires final adjudication, his constitutional right to trial shall not be denied. The court may consult with or seek the assistance of any agency, public or private, or any person concerning such a referral. Assignment to a drug program may be contingent upon budgetary considerations and availability of space.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 591 So. 2d 248 - State v. Vola · 456 So. 2d 575 - State v. Edwards

2. “First, section 775.087(2)(a) is the later promulgated statute. It took effect substantially as currently written on May 14, 1975. (Chapter 75-7, Senate Bill No. 55). Section 397.12 first appeared in similar form in 1973 and took effect on July 1, 1973. (Chapter 73-350, House Bill No. 1358). Thus, assuming — but without deciding — that the statutes conflict, section 775.087(2)(a) should prevail as the last expression of legislative will. The Legislature, in passing the later statute, is presumed to know the earlier law. And, unless an explicit exception is made for an earlier statute, the later statute controls. In addition, we note that section 775.087(2)(a) is unambiguous... . * * * * * * [W]ell-settled rules of construction require that a statute's terms be construed according to their plain meaning. Finally, it is significant that there exists no express indication that the Legislature intended section 397.12 to serve as an exception to section 775.087(2)(a)'s mandatory term of imprisonment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 875 So. 2d 1257 - GEL Corp. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection · 591 So. 2d 248 - State v. Vola

3. “Except as authorized by this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to sell, purchase, manufacture, or deliver, or to possess with the intent to sell ... a controlled substance in, on, or within 1,000 feet of ... a public or private elementary, middle, or secondary school. Any person who violates this paragraph ... is guilty of a felony of the first degree, ... and shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 calendar years. ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 591 So. 2d 248 - State v. Vola · 603 So. 2d 504 - Scates v. State