Bragenzer v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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

1. “Although the state filed an information against the defendant within three-year limitation period, the state failed to execute the capias until more than ten years after the offense was committed. Since this capias was executed after the three-year limitation period had expired, the state has the burden of proving that it had been diligent in its efforts to execute the capias in order to establish that the prosecution was timely.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 606 So. 2d 473 - State v. Picklesimer · 687 So. 2d 917 - King v. State

2. “(5) A prosecution is commenced when either an indictment or information is filed, provided the capias, summons, or other process issued on such indictment or information is executed without unreasonable delay. In determining what is reasonable, inability to locate the defendant after diligent search or the defendant's absence from the state shall be considered.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wright v. State · Bonel v. State

3. “In light of ... Walker and Wells , we conclude that the state's single attempt to serve defendant in 1984 does not constitute a diligent search, and therefore the six-year delay in the execution of the capias is unreasonable.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 606 So. 2d 473 - State v. Picklesimer · 687 So. 2d 917 - King v. State