751 So. 2d 326 - State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Energy Cooperative, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · 446 So. 2d 729 - State v. Prudholm · 416 So. 2d 528 - State v. Ratcliff · 428 So. 2d 444 - State v. Seiss
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.
“I don’t think that the law is that the State can proceed with a hearing on a motion, fail, and then just file another one. I can’t imagine that being the spirit and the letter of the law; fairness, equity, you know. Defense counsel don’t (sic) get an opportunity to lose a trial and then say, “Well, okay, Judge. Come on. Give me another one.” And then give me another one. You had your Multiple Bill hearing today, you failed to give your burden of proof, you proved that he was a double and not a triple. Now you want to file another one. |1fiWell, I don’t think it goes like that. Trial — multiple trial isn’t until the State gets it right. Let me find that one in the code. You had your hearing, you fail[ed], take it up.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.