State v. Marcolini’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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

1. “In Allen , ... the New York statute provided that the presence of a firearm in an automobile was "presumptive evidence of its possession by all persons occupying such automobile." The Supreme Court, after considering all of the facts, held the provision constitutional as applied to three occupants of an automobile, where two handguns were in an open handbag of a fourth occupant and were visible to the officer who had stopped the vehicle for speeding. If the New York statute in Allen passes the rational connection test, then the Florida statute, as applied to the facts in this case so far as we know them, also passes the rational connection test. In our opinion the odds are just as good that the defendant in the present case is the culprit as the odds were that all of the occupants of the vehicle in Allen were in possession of the handguns in the open handbag of one of the occupants. In addition to Allen, State v. Ferrari, 398 So.2d 804 (Fla.1981), also supports our conclusion that the present inference passes the rational connection test. In Ferrari , the supreme court held that a statutory provision which made it "prima facie evidence" of criminal fraud for a contractor to use a payment made by the owner for any purpose other than paying for the labor or services performed on the owner's property passed the rational connection test.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 673 So. 2d 3 - Marcolini v. State

2. “(3) The presence on property in the actual possession of a person of any device or alteration which effects the diversion or use of the services of a utility, cable television service, or community antenna line service so as to avoid the registration of such use by or on a meter installed by the utility or so as to otherwise avoid the reporting of use of such service for payment shall be prima facie evidence of the violation of this section by such person; however, this presumption shall not apply unless: (a) The presence of such a device or alteration can be attributed only to a deliberate act in furtherance of an intent to avoid payment for utility services; (b) The person charged has received the direct benefit of the reduction of the cost of such utility services; and (c) The customer or recipient of the utility services has received the direct benefit of such utility service for at least one full billing cycle.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 673 So. 2d 3 - Marcolini v. State

3. “[W]e are not persuaded that the changes made by the legislature would make the provision constitutional under the analysis used by the MacMillan court....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 673 So. 2d 3 - Marcolini v. State