745 So. 2d 519 - Grant v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[w]e do not find that imposition of the maximum sentence provided by statutory law constitutes cruel or unusual punishment, because there is no possibility that the Act inflicts torture or a lingering death or the infliction of unnecessary and wanton pain.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 773 So. 2d 99 - Hall v. State · 752 So. 2d 64 - Chambers v. State

2. “In this case, the Act increases the penalty for a crime committed after the Act, based on release from prison resulting from a conviction which occurred prior to the Act. It is no different than a defendant receiving a stiffer sentence under a habitual offender law for a crime committed after the passage of the law, where the underlying convictions giving the defendant habitual offender status occurred prior to the passage of the law. Under those circumstances habitual offender laws have been held not to constitute ex post facto law violations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Grant v. State

3. “[T]his act does not violate the single subject requirement of the Florida Constitution because each section of chapter 97-239, Laws of Florida, deals with reoffenders and does not accomplish separate and disassociated objects of legislative effort.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 752 So. 2d 64 - Chambers v. State