Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 649 SO2D 1187 - State v. Armentor

State v. Armentor’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
June 2012
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2012

11 state decisions

50199520002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · State Ex Rel. Graffagnino v. King · Southern Railway Co. v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp. · 404 So. 2d 1205 - State v. Campbell · 414 So. 2d 1210 - State v. Howard

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

  1. “In order to obtain a conviction in the case sub judice, the State was required to prove that Armentor had possession of a firearm. The .22 caliber rounds in his pants pocket and the .22 caliber pistol in the truck were located by the police only after Armentor was arrested. In order to prove that there was a legal search; therefore, the State had to introduce into evidence the precipitating events concerning the drugs and paraphernalia that led to a valid arrest of Armentor [sic]. The evidence of other crimes was not introduced so [sic ] show that defendant acted in conformity therewith, but was introduced because it was anjipintegral part of the act or transaction that was the subject of the proceeding. Thus, this assignment of error lacks merit.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “when it relates to conduct that constitutes an integral part of the act or transaction that is the subject of the present proceeding.”
    1 later decision 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.