484 So. 2d 71 - Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

cited by 21 later decisions

states following

December 1997

most recently cited

21 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 475 So. 2d 1218 - Hendrix v. State · 469 So. 2d 128 - Weems v. State · 482 So. 2d 414 - Booker v. State · 480 So. 2d 663 - Smith v. State · 477 So. 2d 56 - Johnson 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“frequent contacts with the criminal justice system [was] something substantially more than a mere reference to the defendant's prior criminal record.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 504 So. 2d 392 - Williams v. State · 492 So. 2d 741 - Pittman v. State
“1. The Defendant as a juvenile was committed to the Department of HRS for the offense of Arson dated January 11, 1977. He was committed also in Case No. 76-466 for Arson and Burglary of an Occupied Dwelling, and again committed for Shoplifting dated August 18, 1978. At age eighteen (18) years, the Defendant was sentenced to Department of Corrections for three (3) years for Burglary of a Structure dated February 19, 1979 and paroled September 16, 1980. He was charged with violation of his parole on March 3, 1981 having only been out of prison for some six months. On July 10, 1981 the Defendant was again sentenced to the Department of Corrections on the offense of Attempted Burglary for five (5) years. On December 10, 1983 he was discharged as to that sentence and after only approximately ten (10) months committed the instant offense on October 6, 1984.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 504 So. 2d 392 - Williams v. State · 509 So. 2d 1165 - Jaggers v. State
“continuing and persistent pattern of criminal activity since age 16, together with the timing of such offenses relative to prior offenses and releases from incarceration or supervision, clearly demonstrate the inadequacy of sentences for the subject crimes within the guidelines range”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 492 So. 2d 741 - Pittman 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.