758 So. 2d 110 - State v. Kalogeropolous’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
47 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 370 So. 2d 368 - Landers v. Milton · 678 So. 2d 319 - Boler v. State · 243 So. 2d 587 - State v. Davis · Knight Energy Services, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co. · 747 So. 2d 368 - Dorelus v. State
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]here are no material disputed facts and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facie case of guilt against the defendant.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“The State need only specifically dispute a material fact alleged by the defendant or add additional material facts that meet the minimal requirement of a prima facie case.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““In order for the State to defeat a motion to dismiss, rule 3.190(d) provides in part: The state may traverse or demur to a motion to dismiss that alleges factual matters. Factual matters alleged in a motion to dismiss under subdivision (c)(4) of this rule shall be deemed admitted unless specifically denied by the state in the traverse.... A motion to dismiss under subdivision (c)(4) of this rule shall be denied if the state files a traverse that with specificity denies under oath the material fact or facts alleged in the motion to dismiss. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190(d) (emphasis added).... [T]he ‘with specificity’ language was added to the rule to clarify that the State was required to file a specific traverse to ‘specific material fact or facts’ in order to defeat a motion to dismiss. If the facts in the motion that the State does not specifically deny support the defendant’s position but additional facts exist that would create a material issue preventing the granting of the motion, the State should set forth those additional facts in the traverse just as a non-movant would have to do in a counter-affidavit in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment.” [c.o.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sammons · Knipp 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.