Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably 714 So. 2d 391 - Mahn v. State (1998), 692 So. 2d 883 - Robinson v. State (1997)
26 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 State v. Weller · 452 So. 2d 927 - State v. Baker · 490 So. 2d 44 - Royal v. State · 430 So. 2d 446 - Brown v. State · 577 So. 2d 1302 - Gould 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] lesser offense may be a category-two permissive lesser included offense if its elements are alleged in the accusatory pleading and proven at the trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In virtually every case of armed robbery, the deadly weapon carried by the perpetrator is the means by which he induces "force, violence, assault, or putting in fear," one of the elements of any robbery, armed or unarmed. However, the statutory element which enhances punishment for armed robbery is not the use of the deadly weapon, but the mere fact that a deadly weapon was carried by the perpetrator. The victim may never even be aware that a robber is armed, so long as the perpetrator has the weapon in his possession during the offense. For double jeopardy purposes, this Court is bound to consider only the statutory elements of the offenses, not the allegations or proof in a particular case. Where an offense is not a necessarily lesser included offense, based on its statutory elements, the intent of the legislature clearly is to provide for separate convictions and punishments for the two offenses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We acknowledge that our opinion in Royal v. State placed this rationale in doubt. Compare Brown v. State, 569 So.2d 1820 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), with Wright v. State, 519 So.2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). However, it must be noted that the necessarily lesser included offense question was not the primary issue in Royal , and we did not expressly overrule Baker . In any event, we hereby reiterate that aggravated assault is not a category-one necessarily lesser included offense of armed robbery.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bell v. State
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.