80 So. 3d 116 - Spearman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
August 2017
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Hamling v. United States · 895 So. 2d 836 - Bush v. State · Love v. State · 898 So. 2d 641 - Price v. State · Gilmer 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he auto-theft statute was amended to clarify that the crime encompasses taking vehicles for any amount of time ... [and that] the length of time of the possession or deprivation need not be charged or proved. So long as the State alleges and proves a person intended to convert or, as charged here, “take pos session of or take away” another’s vehicle for any amount of time, it has met its burden to show auto theft. Therefore, omission of the terms “temporary” and “permanent” do not render the indictment defective because the statute makes clear that any possession or taking — albeit temporary or permanent— suffices to establish auto theft.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vinzant 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.