452 So. 2d 136 - Manning v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “factors relating to the instant offenses”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 479 So. 2d 845 - Sabb v. State · Dickey v. State

2. “) offense into account in nearly every reported case, almost all of which arose while the former guidelines were in vogue. Thus, if Judge Ervin be correct, we have built a mountain of incorrect law. It is to be hoped the Supreme Court will dispel our apprehensions. Meanwhile, we take comfort from the majority view in Manning, supra, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.701(b)(3) which reads: The penalty imposed should be commensurate with the severity of the convicted offense and the circumstances surrounding the offense. (emphasis supplied) The definition of”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 454 So. 2d 714 - Garcia v. State · 458 So. 2d 37 - Mischler v. State

3. “Reasons for deviating from the guidelines shall not include factors relating to either instant offense or prior arrests for which convictions have not been obtained.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 477 So. 2d 1083 - Thrasher v. State · 454 So. 2d 714 - Garcia v. State