648 So. 2d 274 - Hamrick v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 780 So. 2d 17 - Gordon v. State (2001), 911 So. 2d 85 - Battle v. State (2005)
1 federal appellate · 21 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 Blockburger v. United States · 547 So. 2d 613 - State v. Smith · In Re Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.851 · 577 So. 2d 939 - State v. McCloud · 452 So. 2d 927 - State v. Baker
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Robbery requires proof of a taking or depriving of property, an element that battery does not require. In contrast, the crime of battery requires an actual and intentional touching of the victim, which is not necessarily an element of robbery. During a robbery the robber could place the victim "in fear", thereby satisfying the force or violence element of robbery, without satisfying the intentional or actual[] touching element of battery.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Maultsby v. State · TCE v. State“The statutory elements of battery are: an actual and intentional touching or striking of another person against the will of the other person; or intentionally causing bodily harm to an individual.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“application of the second statutory exception offenses which are degrees of the same offense as provided by statute. This Court explained that construction of the second exception involves a two-step inquiry: whether the crimes constitute separate offenses under Blockburger, as codified in section 775.021(4)(a); and whether the crimes are”
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.