Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 436 So. 2d 93 - Combs v. State · Board of Public Instruction of Broward Cty. v. Doran · 448 So. 2d 984 - Fine v. Firestone · 382 So. 2d 654 - Brown v. Firestone · 356 So. 2d 276 - State v. Lee
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“we think this is the object and not the subject of the provisions. Further, approving such a general subject for a non-comprehensive law would write completely out of the constitution the anti-log rolling provision of article III, section 6. The defendants identify 16 subject matters: 1. Drug Abuse Crimes 2. Education and Drug Abuse 3. Conveyances: forfeiture, title registration 4. Vessel operation crimes 5. Money Laundering Control Act 6. Planting of a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a notion rejected by the Fifth District in Williams v. State, 459 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984): Even if that subject was expressed, for example, in a title reading”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.