527 So. 2d 641 - King v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably McGruder v. Puckett (1992), Sones v. Hargett (1995)
2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co. · Scott v. Rosenberg · State v. Clemons · 492 So. 2d 1281 - Watts v. State · Jones 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“serving one year or more on concurrent sentences for separate convictions amounts to serving more than one year on each sentence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]f a mistrial is granted upon the court's own motion, or upon the state's motion, a second trial is barred because of double jeopardy unless there was a manifest necessity for the mistrial, taking into consideration all the circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Sentencing of habitual criminals to life imprisonment. Every person convicted in this state of a felony who shall have been convicted twice previously of any felony or federal crime upon charges separately brought and arising out of separate incidents at different times and who shall have been sentenced to and served separate terms of one (1) year or more in any state and/or federal penal institution, whether in this state or elsewhere, and where any one (1) of such felonies shall have been a crime of violence shall be sentenced to life imprisonment, and such sentence shall not be reduced or suspended nor shall such person be eligible for parole or probation.”
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.