597 So. 2d 798 - Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently October 2017
22 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 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · Grappin v. State · 435 So. 2d 789 - State v. Getz · 574 So. 2d 242 - Johnson 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The theft occurred when Johnson wrongfully took the property of another. He did this in one swift motion. The degree of the crime of theft depends on what was taken. Because of the value of the property, his crime was a third-degree felony. Because part of the goods he took was a firearm, his crime additionally is defined as a third-degree felony. Subsection 812.014(1), Florida Statutes (1989), defines the crime of theft, and subsection 812.014(2) sets the degree of the crime committed under subsection (1). We conclude that the value of the goods or the taking of a firearm merely defines the degree of the felony and does not constitute separate crimes. A separate crime occurs only when there are separate distinct acts of seizing the property of another."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gibbs v. State · Moore v. State“We recognize that our views herein appear to be contrary to State v. Getz, 435 So.2d 789 (Fla.1983), wherein we upheld a third-degree felony conviction for the taking of a gun and a petit theft conviction for the taking of a calculator when both takings occurred during a household burglary. In Getz , however, there was a separate intent and act to take each item. In this case there was one intent and one act of taking the handbag. Had the gun been picked up separately from the taking of the handbag, Getz would allow separate convictions.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“where an enclosed bag and its contents are the subject of the theft in one swift action ... there c[an] only be one theft conviction in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.