652 So. 2d 409 - Isley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
216 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 220 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Matter of Johnson (1997), Simpkins v. State (2005)
216 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 Jones v. State · 634 So. 2d 618 - Florida Dept. of Revenue v. Herre · 581 So. 2d 162 - Lott v. State · 620 So. 2d 757 - BOARD OF COUNTY COMM'RS v. Sawyer · 614 So. 2d 455 - Foster 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 220 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This case reminds me of my grandmother's final warning and admonition to me and my siblings as children, when we had exhausted her patience with our doings. `Enough is enough,' she would say. And that was the end of it.”
43 later decisions quote this exact passage“heard, considered, and rejected ... is an abuse of process”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hepburn v. State · Donovan v. State“We direct post-conviction litigants to the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, Chapter 96-248. This Act added section 924.051(9), Florida Statutes, which provides that it is the intent of the Legislature that the terms and conditions of collateral review and procedural bars to collateral review shall be strictly enforced. Further, a prisoner who is found by a court to have brought a frivolous suit, action, claim, proceeding or appeal in any court is subject to having all or any part of his or her gain time forfeited. Section 944.28(2)(a), Florida Statutes. At this point, O'Brien is filing documents faster than this court can dispose of them. Clearly, the Legislature is trying to cut down on exactly this sort of behavior. In accordance with the Criminal Appeal Reform Act, and in order to conserve our judicial resources, we prohibit Mr. O'Brien from filing any further pro se pleadings with this court concerning his 1976/1980 convictions and sentences.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rooney 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.