Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 60 SO3D 462 - J.L. v. State

J.L. v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 790 So. 2d 1194 - Jones v. State · E.J. v. State · CAC v. State · 969 So. 2d 452 - Smith v. State · VMN 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Ojur review of the record in this case compels us to find that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the plastic fork used by Appellant was likely to cause great bodily harm. In reaching its conclusion, the trial court stated that it recognized the human neck’s “vulnerability,” and determined that the fork was “very sharp and very solid.” Based on these findings, the trial court concluded that “[Appellant] was lucky that he wasn’t two inches off’ because, had he been, he “could have punctured a very, very important part of [the victim’s] neck.” In doing so, the court incorrectly engaged in conjecture about what might have happened had Appellant stabbed the victim in a different part of the neck, without any evidence that this perceived potential for great bodily harm was likely based upon the actual circumstances of this case. ... Here, there was no evidence that the injury that likely would result from the way in which Appellant stabbed the victim with a plastic fork would be anything more serious than the victim’s actual injury — scratches and redness— which is the type of injury likely to ensue from a simple battery. This is not to say that under no circumstances can a plastic fork be used in such a way that it can be classified as a deadly weapon, only that those circumstances did not exist here.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “it is simply an object used or threatened to be used in a way likely to produce death or great bodily harm.”
    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.