515 So. 2d 283 - State v. Raffield’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 1855
Relies on Skiriotes v. Florida · Bayside Fish Flour Co. v. Gentry · 451 So. 2d 477 - Gardner v. Johnson · 377 So. 2d 685 - State v. Millington · 465 So. 2d 507 - Livings v. Davis
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Secretary recognizes the conservation and management efforts of the coastal states in the Gulf of Mexico with regard to the red drum fishery. The Secretary desires to support those efforts through ths [sic] emergency action to the maximum extent permitted under the Magnuson [Fishery Conservation and Management] Act.[ [1] ] It is the intent of the Secretary to supplement the States' efforts to conserve red drum. Therefore, the emergency rule does not supersede any State landing laws which apply to red drum. For purposes of the emergency rule, a State landing law is a statute, regulation or ordinance which makes it unlawful to land or possess within the jurisdiction of a State any red drum.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“No person may take food fish within or without the waters of this state with a purse seine... . or have any food fish so taken in his possession for sale or shipment.”
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.