592 So. 2d 733 - Thames v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “[T]he record reflects that this initial stop was consensual. The dispute pertains to whether appellant consented to accompany the officers to the sheriffs office or whether his conduct constituted a mere submission to authority. As the trier of fact, it was the trial court’s prerogative to determine this question, Wade v. State, 589 So.2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and the court’s resolution of such matters should not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous. Jordon v. State, 384 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Upon application of the foregoing principles, together with the presumption of correctness due a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress Medina v. State, 466 So.2d 1046, 1049 (Fla.1985); State v. Pye, 551 So.2d 1287 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), we conclude the trial court could find that appellant consented to accompany officers to the sheriffs office. 1”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. S.L.R. v. State