476 So. 2d 721 - Rembert v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently May 2013
1 federal appellate · 3 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 459 So. 2d 306 - Tucker v. State · 282 So. 2d 162 - State v. King · 419 So. 2d 300 - Sturdivan v. State · 275 So. 2d 274 - State v. King
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We are impressed with another of Tucker’s requirements for an effective waiver, which is that the record must show that “the waiver does not handicap the defense or contravene any of the public policy reasons motivating the enactment of the statute.” The public policy reasons motivating the enactment of the statute must be those which protect a defendant from prosecution on a charge where the means of defense are hampered by the elapse of time. See State v. King [, 275 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) ]. In the present case, Rem-bert has secured for himself this protection by his successful motion to dismiss the robbery count. He now seeks, on another charge which is a part of the same criminal transaction, to secure a contradictory advantage, i.e., that the elapse of time should be disregarded for offenses included in the same criminal episode. To permit such “on again, off again” pleading and waiver of the statute of limitations would, in our opinion, contravene the public policy reasons motivating the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cartagena v. State“The record before us is as devoid of any of the assurances that Rembert participated in the proposed trial maneuver as was the record in Tucker . Rembert’s attorney did produce a written waiver which recited some Tucker requirements^] However, it still left open, under Tucker , the possibility that, had Rembert been found guilty of a lesser-included offense of first degree murder, he could not have been properly convicted and sentenced for such a crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cartagena 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.