808 So. 2d 201 - Cruller v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The prevailing standard for determining the constitutionality of multiple convictions for offenses arising from the same criminal transaction is whether the Legislature `intended to authorize separate punishments for the two crimes.'”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 907 So. 2d 640 - Gorday v. State · 848 So. 2d 1222 - Kilmartin v. State

2. “the language, structure, and legislative history”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 828 So. 2d 462 - Green v. State · 881 So. 2d 1166 - Hunsicker v. State

3. “To reach the opposite conclusion would render an absurd result. In the present case, the defendant forcefully took a wallet and money in addition to taking a motor vehicle. The money and wallet are not covered by the carjacking statute. Under these circumstances, the defendant would receive a substantial windfall if the State were precluded from charging both carjacking and robbery of the wallet and money. In other words, if we were to adopt Cruller’s position, a defendant who forcefully takes a motor vehicle could take countless other items of property and be immune from robbery prosecution for these items. The Legislature could not have intended such an anomalous result.”

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