Crain v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a]ny person whose driver license has been revoked pursuant to s. 322.264 (habitual offender) and who drives any motor vehicle upon the highways of this state while such license is revoked is guilty of a felony of the third degree....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alphonso Finney v. State of Florida · Burgess v. State

2. ““One of the most- fundamental principles of. Florida law is that penal statutes must be strictly construed according to their letter.” ' Perkins v. State, 576 So.2d 1310, 1312 (Fla.1991). “Revocation” is “the termination of a licensee’s privilege to drive.” . § .322.01(36), Fla. Stat. (2009) (emphasis supplied)., The Second District in Carroll v. State, 761 So.2d 417, 418 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000), adopted the state’s argument that “even though appellant did not have a driver’s license, he did have a ‘driving privilege’ that had been revoked due, to his status as a habitual. traffic offender, and the revocation of this driving privilege was the equivalent of revocation of a driver’s license for purposes of section 322.264, Florida Statutes (1997).” But this reads language into the statute that the Legislature did not enact. [[Image here]] It “‘is a firmly established rule that “Courts must apply a statute as they find it, leaving to the legislature the correction of assorted inconsistencies and inequalities in its operation.” ’ ” Guilder v. State, 899 So.2d 412, 419 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting State v. Aiuppa, 298 So.2d 391, 404 (Fla.1974)).”

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

3. “A person whose driving privilege has been revoked, under s. 322.27(5) may, upon expiration of 12 months from the date of such revocation, petition the department for restoration of her driving privilege. Upon such petition and after investigation of the person’s qualification fitness, and need to drive, the department shall hold a hearing pursuant to chapter 120 to determine whether the driving privilege shall be reinstated on a restricted basis solely for business or employment purposes. ¡”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burgess v. State