486 So. 2d 1309 - Floyd v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 21 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the purpose of the [alternative] counts was not to charge two or more separate offenses, but to vary the description of one and the same offense based upon one and the same transaction.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Perkins v. State · Stewart v. State

2. “'The general rule is that the trial court will not exercise its power to compel an election unless it appears either from the indictment or the evidence that an attempt is being made to convict the defendant of two or more offenses growing out of separate and distinct transactions. Williams v. State , 383 So.2d 547 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), aff'd, 383 So.2d 564 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 995 , 101 S.Ct. 534 , 66 L.Ed.2d 293 (1980).'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Weaver v. State · 706 So. 2d 787 - Mitchell v. State

3. “vary the description of one and the same offense based upon one and the same transaction . . . [s]ince the purpose and effect of the joinder of these eight counts was to meet every probable contingency of evidence rather than to convict [the appellant] of two or more distinct offenses.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Knight v. State · 717 So. 2d 827 - George v. State