Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 562 So. 2d 687 - Waldrup v. Dugger

562 So. 2d 687 - Waldrup v. Dugger’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 590 So. 2d 404 - Schmitt v. State (1991), 622 So. 2d 991 - Ellis v. State (1993)

53 state decisions

400199020002010decided

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 Weaver v. Graham · Dobbert v. Florida · Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife. · Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank · Lindsey v. State of Washington

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

  1. “When a part of a statute is declared unconstitutional the remainder of the act will be permitted to stand provided: (1) the unconstitutional provisions can be separated from the remaining valid provision, (2) the legislative purpose expressed in the valid provisions can be accomplished independently of those which are void, (3) the good and the bad features are not so inseparable in substance that it can be said that the Legislature would have passed the one without the other and, (4) an act complete in itself remains after the invalid provisions are stricken.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(4)(a) As a means of encouraging satisfactory behavior, the department shall grant basic gain-time at the rate of 10 days for each month of each sentence imposed on a prisoner, subject to the following: (b)For each month in which an inmate works diligently, participates in training, uses time constructively, or otherwise engages in positive activities, the department may grant incentive gain-time in accordance with this paragraph. The rate of incentive gain-time in effect on the date the inmate committed the offense which resulted in his or her incarceration shall be the inmate’s rate of eligibility to earn incentive gain-time throughout the period of incarceration and shall not be altered by a subsequent change in the severity level of the offense for which the inmate was sentenced. 1. For sentences imposed for offenses committed prior to January 1, 1994, up to 20 days of incentive gain-time may be granted. If granted, such gain-time shall be credited and applied monthly. 2. For sentences imposed for offenses committed on or after January 1, 1994, and before October 1,1995: a. For offenses ranked in offense severity levels 1 through 7, under s. 921.0012 or s. 921.0013, up to 25 days of incentive gain-time may be granted. If granted, such gain-time shall be credited and applied monthly. b. For offenses ranked in offense severity levels 8, 9, and 10, under s. 921.0012 or s. 921.0013, up to 20 days of incentive gain-time may be granted. If granted, such gain-time shall be credi”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “the courts should disfavor creating a hybrid statute comprised of parts taken from both present-day and superseded enactments. Such an action interjects the judiciary into a realm of policy considerations that properly belongs to the legislature. However, we entertain a hybrid here only because we have been requested to do so by the administrative agency entrusted by the legislature to oversee and administer the particular statutes now under review. Because DOC exercises this broad prerogative, we believe it has authority to waive any objection the state otherwise might raise regarding the creation of a hybrid statute of the type suggested here... .”
    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.