476 So. 2d 158 - Albritton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

400

cited by 400 later decisions

states following

March 2019

most recently cited

399 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 400 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 488 So. 2d 523 - State v. Mischler (1986), 732 So. 2d 1065 - Banks v. State (1999)

399 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 Chapman v. State of California · 382 So. 2d 1197 - Canakaris v. Canakaris · 408 So. 2d 1091 - Leonard v. Leonard · 443 So. 2d 955 - State v. Murray · State v. Evans

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

“the sentence should be reversed and the case remanded for resentencing unless the state is able to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the absence of the invalid reasons would not have affected the departure sentence.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 479 So. 2d 739 - Griffin v. State · 479 So. 2d 153 - Irwin v. State
“An appellate court reviewing a departure sentence should look to the guidelines sentence, the extent of the departure, the reasons given for the departure, and the record to determine if the departure is reasonable.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 476 So. 2d 275 - Lerma v. State · 477 So. 2d 1083 - Thrasher v. State
“WHEN AN APPELLATE COURT FINDS THAT A SENTENCING COURT RELIED UPON A REASON OR REASONS THAT ARE IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER FLA.R.CR.P. 3.701 IN MAKING ITS DECISION TO DEPART FROM THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES, SHOULD THE APPELLATE COURT EXAMINE THE OTHER REASONS GIVEN BY THE SENTENCING COURT TO DETERMINE IF THOSE REASONS JUSTIFY DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDELINES OR SHOULD THE CASE BE REMANDED FOR A RESENTENCING.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 476 So. 2d 161 - State v. Young · 485 So. 2d 1285 - State v. Head

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.