Wilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “offenses [which arose] from separate incidents occurring at separate times and places”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 467 So. 2d 996 - Wilson v. State · Ames v. State

2. “I am not as convinced as my colleagues that the statute contemplates review by appellate courts of the sufficiency of the reasons stated by the trial court for retention. See Moore v. State, 392 So.2d 277 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (Cowart, J., specially concurring); compare Mobley v. State, 409 So.2d 1031, 1038 (Fla. 1982) (failure of trial court to make any findings justifying retention vacated and cause remanded so that findings may be made). In view of this court's previous decisions in retention appeals, e.g. Abbott v. State, 421 So.2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), and Saname v. State, 427 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), I concur in the court's decision to reverse on this ground. However, I favor certifying to the Supreme Court the following question as one of great public importance: Do the appellate courts of this State have jurisdiction to review the sufficiency of the reasons stated by trial courts for retention of jurisdiction under Section 947.16(3)(a)?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Saname v. State

3. “the offenses involved in the case at bar qualify for consecutive treatment under Palmer.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 467 So. 2d 996 - Wilson v. State