502 So. 2d 61 - Simpson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
April 1993
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 476 So. 2d 158 - Albritton v. State · 488 So. 2d 523 - State v. Mischler · Swain v. State · 484 So. 2d 71 - Williams v. State · 488 So. 2d 677 - Campos 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"1. The regularity or frequency with which the crimes were committed. One attempted armed robbery and attempted first degree murder was committed on June 12, 1985. Two days later on June 14, the defendant committed another armed robbery and aggravated battery. 2. During the two robberies the defendant fired his pistol six times two of which shots were to intimidate and hasten the victims into compliance. Those wildly fired shots placed persons nearby at great risk. The other four shots were fired at unarmed victims (at one with premeditated intent to murder) and at the other with the intent to kill or maim. 3. None of the four victims were armed nor did they pose any threat to the defendant. Yet, he shot two of them without provocation. 4. The actions of the defendant at both robberies were those of a deadly predatory animal taunting and terrifying its prey. In addition to the physical injuries, the victims have been emotionally ravaged and psychologically traumatized. 5. The acts of the defendant were not accidental or due to nervousness. If they had been, there probably would have been only one shooting. However, the defendant threatened and shot victims during both robberies evincing a homicidal intent and a contempt for human life."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“IS THE REGULARITY AND FREQUENCY, i.e., THE TEMPORAL PROXIMITY, OF OFFENSES SCORED ON THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES SCORESHEET A VALID GROUND FOR DEPARTURE FROM THE GUIDELINES RECOMMENDED SENTENCE?”
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.