Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 528 So. 2d 101 - Watson v. State

528 So. 2d 101 - Watson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
April 2011
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 2011

16 state decisions

901988199020002010decided

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 526 So. 2d 159 - Franklin v. State · Clem v. State · 478 So. 2d 1052 - Brooks v. State · Brooks v. State · 487 So. 2d 416 - Crosby 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"[T]he only logical conclusion is that the legislature intended to change the case law interpretation of § 958.14, or in any event to change the law, so that once the circuit court has given a defendant youthful offender status and has sentenced him as a youthful offender, it must continue that status and only resentence the defendant as a youthful offender for a violation of the probation or community control portion of his youthful offender sentence. A youthful offender's sentence after revocation of probation or community control is therefore limited to a maximum of six years less credit for time served. To assume that the legislature did not intend a change in the law would be to assume it intended to enact a nullity."”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A violation or alleged violation of probation or the terms of a community control program shall subject the youthful offender to the provisions of s. 948.06(1). However, no youthful offender shall be committed to the custody of the department for such violation for a period longer than 6 years or for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he was found guilty, whichever is less, with credit for time served while incarcerated.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A violation or alleged violation of the terms of a community control program shall subject the youthful offender to the provisions of s. 948.06(1).”
    2 later decisions 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.