Dixon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2012
12 state decisions
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 Terry v. Ohio · Adams v. State · 452 So. 2d 850 - Johnson v. State · 443 So. 2d 869 - Stinson v. State · 461 So. 2d 724 - Ward 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [T]he trial court did not err in allowing the state to proceed on a five-count indictment where the crimes had the same elements and proof and arose from the same transaction or occurrence. We note further that although the two groups of charges carried different maximum punishments, the trial court recognized this by sentencing Dixon separately on each conviction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“I wish to emphasize that I in no way endorse the use of a multi-count indictment where the charges against a defendant arise out of separate transactions or occurrences charged to have taken place at separate times.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McCarty v. State
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.