76 So. 2d 148 - Farrior v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"An examination of the trial transcript, consisting of less than five pages, reveals that the evidence is weak and inconclusive pertaining to whether larceny was committed. Moreover, there is a complete want of evidence upon one element essential to proof of an offense. The information simply charged defendant with stealing one automobile, the property of one Max Sublin, and there is no evidence whatsoever as to the type or value of the automobile, which was described during the trial simply as ‘an automobile.’ It is not clear whether the proceeding below was upon the theory of a violation of Sections 811.01-02, F.S.1951, F.S.A., or of Section 811.20, F.S.1951, F.S.A. But if it were under the former sections, proof of value of the stolen property was required, see Morgan v. State, 13 Fla. 671 , and if it were under the latter section, proof that the automobile was of a type described in the statute was required. See Lasher v. State, 80 Fla. 712 , 86 So. 689 ; People v. State, 202 Ind. 177 , 172 N.E. 902 . In either event, the evidence wholly fails to prove an element necessary to support the verdict, judgment and three year sentence. “The final judgment from which this appeal is prosecuted is hereby “Reversed.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 102 So. 2d 412 - Johnson v. State

2. ““The motion for new trial in the instant case, as aforesaid, was filed on the fifth day, and apparently was brought to the attention of the court on the eighth day, after verdict. At that time the court had the right to allow it to be filed. That the court did then allow it to be filed is self-evident from the fact that the court then ruled upon the motion on the merits instead of dismissing it. “In the case of Perry v. State, 146 Fla. 187 , 200 So. 525, 526 , it was not certain from the record when the verdict was rendered by the jury. Thus in that case, as in the instant case, the motion could have been properly filed, but the record made no affirmative showing to that effect. In the Perry case, as in the main case, the State contended that this Court should not review the order denying motion for a new trial because of an asserted affirmative showing that it was not timely filed. In disposing of this contention, we said ‘since the trial court denied the motion for new trial instead of dismissing it, we must presume, in the absence of a contrary shozmng by the record, that his ruling was correct and the motion was filed within the time limited by statute (Italics added.)””

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

3. ““A motion for a new trial may be made within four days, or such further time as the court may allow, not to exceed fifteen days, after the rendition of the verdict or the finding of the court, sjs * »”

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