476 So. 2d 180 - Cave v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 30 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Counsel may not contravene the law and the jury instructions in arguing to the jury.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sanders v. State · 752 So. 2d 19 - Quaggin v. State

2. “Cave and three accomplices left Ft. Pierce, Florida, on the evening of April 26, 1982, and drove to Stuart, Florida. They arrived in Stuart at approximately 11 p.m. that evening. The driver, and owner of the car in which all four rode, was John Earl Bush. The other two accomplices were J.B. ("Pig") Parker and Terry Wayne Johnson ("Bo Gator"). At approximately 3 a.m. on the following morning, the four men drove to a convenience store in Stuart. Cave and two of the men [Bush and Parker] entered the store where Cave held a hand gun on the youthful female clerk [Frances Slater] and demanded the store's cash. The clerk surrendered the cash, whereupon she was taken from the store and placed in the back seat of the car. The men drove her to a rural area approximately thirteen miles away where she was removed from the car by the four men. After leaving the car, one of the men [probably Bush] stabbed the victim and, when she fell, another [probably Parker] fired a single lethal shot into the back of her head.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cave v. Secretary for DepartMent of Corrections · Cave v. State

3. “[T]he attention of counsel in this case and others appearing before this Court is invited to Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 , 103 S.Ct. 3308 , 77 L.Ed.2d 987 (1983), and the authorities cited therein on the professional duty of appellate counsel to winnow out weaker arguments in order to concentrate on key issues. We have noted an increasing tendency in death penalty cases toward longer briefs with more issues which submerge and dilute arguably meritorious issues. It is not clear whether this trend results from client pressure to raise every conceivable issue or from counsels' fears that omission of any conceivable issue will constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. It is clear that neither the interests of the client nor the judicial system are served by this trend toward hybridization of pro se, Anders ( Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967)) and professional briefs. In this respect, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), which recognizes the authority and duty of counsel to exercise professional judgment in representing clients.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 759 So. 2d 650 - Thompson v. State · 675 So. 2d 194 - Dagostino v. State