Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 539 So. 2d 416 - Moore v. State

539 So. 2d 416 - Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
May 2010
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2010

7 state decisions

501988199020002010decided

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 Solem v. Helm · Rummel v. Estelle · National Labor Relations Board v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n · Corbitt v. New Jersey · United States Steel Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

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

  1. “"An act or statement by a co-conspirator is provable against the accused if it is so closely connected and coordinated in time and place with the principal criminal act as that a sound-motion picture of the crime, *Page 99 which did not show such act or statement, would be reasonably considered as an imperfect portrayal of the crime."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Statements made by a co-conspirator within the res gestae of the crime are admissible against the defendant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"[A] codefendant's sentence is immaterial to the propriety of a sentence imposed on a defendant. Indeed, 'the government is permitted to encourage guilty pleas by offering substantial benefits to a defendant, and [the appellant,] having rejected the offer of a plea bargain, cannot complain that his codefendants received the benefit of a light sentence.' [D]isparity in sentencing may be proper where a co-defendant receives a lighter sentence pursuant to a plea agreement and that sentence is no basis for comparison to another codefendant's sentence. (Citations omitted.)"”
    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.