Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 604 So. 2d 482 - State v. Arnette

604 So. 2d 482 - State v. Arnette’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
5
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 112 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably 714 So. 2d 429 - State v. Mancino (1998), 679 So. 2d 278 - Kukral v. Mekras (1996)

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 112 state decisions

850199220002010decided

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 443 So. 2d 973 - Clark v. State · 558 So. 2d 994 - The Florida Bar v. Bauman · Clem v. State · 478 So. 2d 1052 - Brooks v. State · 528 So. 2d 101 - Watson 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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If probation ... is revoked, the court shall adjudge the probationer or offender guilty of the offense charged ... and impose any sentence which it might have originally imposed before placing the probationer on probation. ... (emphasis supplied)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[u]nless the legislature clearly states otherwise, youthful offenders maintain youthful offender status even when they violate a condition of community control.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “However, no youthful offender shall be committed to the custody of the department for a substantive violation for a period longer than the maximum-sentence for the offense for which he or she was found guilty .. or for a technical or nonsubstantive violation for a period longer than [six] years or for a period longer than the maximum sentence for the offense for which he or she was found guilty, whichever is less....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.