478 So. 2d 38 - Dean v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 45 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We hold that a severance was not required in the penalty phase of the trial. As to the alleged conflict concerning which defendant dominated the other, our decision in McCray disposes of this contention. In McCray we stated: [T]he fact that the defendant might have a better chance of acquittal or a strategic advantage if tried separately does not establish the right to a severance. Nor is hostility among defendants, or an attempt by one defendant to escape punishment by throwing the blame on a codefendant, a sufficient reason, by itself, to require severance. If the defendants engage in a swearing match as to who did what, the jury should resolve the conflicts and determine the truth of the matter.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Puiatti v. McNeil · Herrera v. State

2. “In Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 [ 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 ] (1978), the United States Supreme Court discarded reliance on concepts of “standing” in determining whether a defendant is entitled to claim the protections of the exclusionary rule. The inquiry, after Rakas , is simply whether the defendant’s rights were violated by the allegedly illegal search or seizure. United States v. Salvucchi, [sic] 448 U.S. 83 , 87 n. 4 [ 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 2551 n. 4, 65 L.Ed.2d 619 ] (1980). We did not adopt the single-treatment analysis expoused [sic] by the United States Supreme Court in Rakas in [State v. Tsavaris, 394 So.2d 418 (Fla. 1981)]. As noted above, we regarded standing separately. However, in today's decision, we do adopt the Rakas analysis. We hold that the determination of whether the proponent of a motion to suppress is entitled to contest the legality of a search and seizure must take into consideration the substantive fourth amendment issues as well as the concept of standing. In so holding, we recede from that portion of Tsavaris treating standing as a separate inquiry to be determined before the substantive fourth amendment issues.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 482 So. 2d 421 - Sparkman v. State · 536 So. 2d 1108 - Andrews v. State

3. “All that is required is that the subpoenaed materials be relevant to the investigation being conducted and that the subpoena not be overly broad or burdensome. A proper subpoena is one that is properly limited in scope, relevant in purpose, and specific in directive so that compliance will not be unreasonably burdensome.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Checkn Go of Florida, Inc. v. State · 794 So. 2d 712 - State v. Fahner