Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 616 So. 2d 1 - State v. Johnson

616 So. 2d 1 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

220
cited by 220 later decisions
1
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

219 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 220 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Heggs v. State (2000), 760 So. 2d 89 - Maddox v. State (2000)

219 state decisions

1240199320002010decided

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 Steinhorst v. State · 403 So. 2d 956 - Ray v. State · 591 So. 2d 178 - Florida Bar re Corbin · 237 So. 2d 134 - Sanford v. Rubin · Martinez v. Scanlan

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

  1. “[F]or an error to be so fundamental that it can be raised for the first time on appeal, the error must be basic to the judicial decision under review and equivalent to a denial of due process.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Once reenacted as a portion of the Florida Statutes, a chapter law is no longer subject to challenge on the ground that it violates the single subject requirement of article III, section 6, of the Florida Constitution.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “legislation, i.e., putting two unrelated matters in one act; (2) to prevent surprise or fraud by means of provisions in bills of which the titles gave no intimation, and which might therefore be overlooked and carelessly and unintentionally adopted; and (3) to fairly apprise the people of the subjects of legislation that are being considered, in order that they may have opportunity of being heard thereon. More recently, this Court stated: The purpose of this constitutional prohibition against a plurality of subjects in a single legislative act is to prevent”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.