Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 714 SO2D 445 - State v. Salzero

State v. Salzero’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2017

8 state decisions

50199820002010decided

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 360 So. 2d 406 - Stuart v. State · State v. Koch · 528 So. 2d 1296 - Climpson v. State · 513 So. 2d 1374 - Lasker v. Parker · 659 So. 2d 1322 - State v. Thomas

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

  1. “No later than 5 days from the date of the filing of a notice of expiration of speedy trial time, the court shall hold a hearing on the notice and, unless the court finds that one of the reasons set forth in subdivision (j) exists, shall order that the defendant be brought to trial within 10 days. A defendant not brought to trial within the 10-day period through no fault of the defendant, on motion of the defendant or the court, shall be forever discharged from the crime.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “The intent of Rule 8.090(m) is to require trial within fifteen days of the filing of the motion for discharge; so long as the trial court's order does not violate this time limit, the timing of the order setting trial is legally insignificant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “strict adherence to [the time requirements of a rule of criminal procedure] would not comport with the clear intent of this section as evident from the committee notes to the 1984 amendment of the rule”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.