533 So. 2d 763 - Ferguson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably 832 So. 2d 730 - Chavez v. State (2002), Berry v. State (1996)
35 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 State v. Buggs · 426 So. 2d 963 - Faison v. State · 479 So. 2d 114 - METROPOLITAN PROPERTY v. Chicago Ins. Co. · 385 So. 2d 696 - Friend v. State · 464 So. 2d 1261 - Chaney 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"is alleged to have been done to facilitate the commission of another crime, to be kidnapping the resulting movement or confinement: (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."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he determination of whether the confinement makes the other crime substantially easier of commission or substantially lessens the risk of detection does not depend upon the accomplishment of its purpose. The question is whether the initial confinement was intended to further either of these objectives.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n this particular situation the court will find that the Faison test, based upon the evidence presented at trial and the witness’s [sic] testimony, the Faison test has been met in terms of going to the jury and that the evidence testified to by the victims indicate that the movement from the store area back to the restroom was not slight, inconsequential or incidental to the robbery. The victims were forced out of the store area at gun point back into the restroom located in the rear, down a hallway at the end, back of the building. That [sic] the added action of the armed individual and [sic] returning back to the restroom and pointing the gun at the clerk just testified to by the clerks and making the threatening statements was not, also not incidental to the crime of robbery and that created such a level of fear as tested [sic] by the victims sufficient to create an act of confinement, specifically the level of the fear testified to by the witnesses as evidenced by their own actions as they testified to and not exiting the bathroom from the closed door ... even though they were asked to come out they did not come out until somebody else opened the door for them to come out, which was just as effective by imposing that level of fear as if they had been locked in the bathroom behind a locked door. And that’s based upon their testimony at trial. So I think that’s sufficient to bring it beyond the, or bring it into the Faison test....”
3 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.