Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 773 So. 2d 46 - Drew v. State

773 So. 2d 46 - Drew v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
3
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably 853 So. 2d 434 - Liggett Group, Inc. v. Engle (2003), Steele v. State (2009)

38 state decisions

330200020102020decided

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 Farrior v. Farrior · 760 So. 2d 940 - Florida Bar v. Grosso · Presley v. State · 601 So. 2d 1195 - State v. Stephens · Richardson 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a proper analysis of the offense of burglary must focus both on the act constituting the entry and the intent to commit an offense therein.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The language of the burglary statute, as drafted by the Legislature, requires both an entry and the requisite intent to commit a crime [therein]. . . . Thus, while the actual penetration into any interior or enclosed area may constitute an entry, . . . an intent to . . . commit an unauthorized act therein after entry has occurred must also be established to satisfy the intent required to commit a crime.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Reaching into the back bed of a pickup truck to remove a secured cooler is, in our judgment, properly considered a partial entry into the vehicle by the defendant and is more analogous to removing a radiator or starter from an engine compartment than taking a hubcap from a tire's exterior or siphoning gas from a gas tank, neither of which involves entry by any part of one's body into a vehicle.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.