496 So. 2d 1194 - State v. Cockerham’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
October 1990
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · 425 So. 2d 1251 - State v. Telsee · State v. Davis · State v. Nelson · 466 So. 2d 733 - State v. Mosley
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In reviewing a sentence for excessiveness this court must consider the punishment and the crime in light of the harm to society and gauge whether the penalty is so disproportionate as to shock our sense of justice, recognizing at the same time the wide discretion afforded the trial judge in determining and imposing sentence. A sentence within statutory limits will not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“No law shall subject any person ... to cruel, excessive or unusual punishment...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.