Warren v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 694 So. 2d 734 - In Re Inquiry Concerning a Judge Re Wright · 559 So. 2d 601 - State v. McAdams · Kingsway Condominium Apts. No. 1, Inc. v. Kingsway Builders, Inc. · 222 So. 2d 434 - Wade v. State · State v. Smith
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In his brief, [Warren] does not challenge the resentencing but instead raises issues as to his original conviction in 1992. We hold that he is precluded from raising issues relating to his conviction as he could have secured review of the conviction in 1992 when the state appealed his sentence. The law of the case doctrine applies and prevents the litigation of issues which either were or could have been raised in the prior appeal. [Warren] had ample opportunity to file his own appeal from his conviction and he failed to do so. He should not be permitted to file a long delayed appeal now.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Generazio 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.