Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 463 So. 2d 1136 - State v. Phillips

463 So. 2d 1136 - State v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
June 2006
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2006

14 state decisions

60198519902000decided

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 459 So. 2d 306 - Tucker v. State · 356 So. 2d 315 - State v. Harris · Sparks v. State · 438 So. 2d 886 - Phillips v. State · York v. State

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

  1. “"Theft of any property not specified in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) is petit theft and a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Upon a second conviction for petit theft, the offender shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Upon a third or subsequent conviction for petit theft, the offender shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in ss. 775.082, 775.083, and 775.084.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““because the charging documents clearly labeled the crime charged as felony petit theft and cited the statute providing that the crime charged could be proved only by evidence of a misdemeanor theft and two prior convictions for misdemeanor theft, ... the information was not fundamentally defective and adequately invoked the jurisdiction of the circuit court.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “but cited section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes, which did not exclusively define felony petit theft because the heading cured any ambiguity by stating that the defendant was charged with a felony petit theft in violation of section 812.014(2)(c), Florida Statutes. The information in the instant case states:”
    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.