Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 646 So. 2d 681 - Edgar v. State

646 So. 2d 681 - Edgar v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
September 2008
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Levasseur v. Wainwright · 435 So. 2d 1351 - Ex Parte Dobard · 435 So. 2d 1338 - Dobard v. State · Phillips v. State · Champion 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"No motion for new trial or motion in arrest of judgment shall remain pending in the trial court for more than sixty (60) days after the pronouncement of sentence, except as provided in this section. A failure by the trial court to rule on such a motion within the sixty (60) days allowed by this section shall constitute a denial of the motion as of the sixtieth day; provided, however, that with the express consent of the prosecutor and the defendant or the defendant's attorney, which consent shall appear in the record, the motion may be carried past the sixtieth day to a date certain; if not ruled upon by the trial court as of the date to which the motion is continued, the motion is deemed denied as of that date, unless it has been continued again as provided in this section. The motion may be continued from time to time as provided in this section."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Nothing in the record indicates that the parties agreed to continue the hearing on Rogers's motion for a new trial past the 60-day period provided for in Rule 24.4. Therefore, Rogers's motion for a new trial was denied by operation of law on May 15, 2000, 60 days after he was sentenced. Because the motion was denied by operation of law on May 15, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing on May 25, 2000, and the trial court's order purporting to deny the motion after the hearing was”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[a]ny testimony given at the . . . hearing likewise is of no consequence and cannot be considered by this court.”
    2 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.