511 So. 2d 744 - Kirtsey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “604 So.2d at 477 , and thus insufficient to sustain a kidnapping conviction. Similarly, Kirtsey and a male confederate forced their way into a Pizza Hut as the last two employees were closing the store. One of the employees was tied up and moved about the interior of the store. The other was forced to open the safe and threatened with a gun. No other acts of confinement or movement occurred. 511 So.2d at 745 . The district court found these acts, though they”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Berry v. State · 620 So. 2d 1110 - Tutt v. State

2. “(a) Must not be slight, inconsequential and merely incidental to the other crime; (b) Must not be of the kind inherent in the nature of the other crime; and (c) Must have some significance independent of the other crime in that it makes the other crime substantially easier of commission or substantially lessens the risk of detection.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baker v. State · 607 So. 2d 454 - Gay v. State

3. ““There was insufficient evidence of incidental acts, separate from simultaneously occurring attempted robbery, to establish kidnapping where confinement and movement of robbery victims was limited to interior of restaurant where robbery occurred; though acts of confinement and movement were not inherent in offense of robbeiy, and may have made attempted robbery easier to commit, acts were slight and merely incidental to robbery offense.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Fisher