815 So. 2d 657 - Braggs v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) The Legislature finds that the case of Delgado v. State , Slip Opinion No. SC88638 (Fla.2000) was decided contrary to legislative intent and the case law of this state relating to burglary prior to Delgado v. State . The Legislature finds that in order for a burglary to occur, it is not necessary for the licensed or invited person to remain in the dwelling, structure, or conveyance surreptitiously.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 863 So. 2d 1205 - State v. Ruiz · 859 So. 2d 486 - Fitzpatrick v. State

2. “Moreover, in its most recent session, the Legislature declared that Delgado was decided contrary to legislative intent and that this Court's interpretation of the burglary statute in Jimenez's direct appeal was in harmony with legislative intent.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 863 So. 2d 1205 - State v. Ruiz · 859 So. 2d 486 - Fitzpatrick v. State

3. “[I]t is permissible to consider the legislative history of chapter 2001-58 to determine why the February 1, 2000 date was chosen. It turns out that the Delgado opinion was first released by the Florida Supreme Court on February 3, 2000. It is evident the February 1 date was chosen in an effort to turn back the clock to the interpretation of the burglary statute as it existed two days prior to the original release of the Delgado opinion. As stated in the House of Representatives legislative history, "The purpose of this provision is to `resettle' the law with respect to pending burglaries...." House of Representatives Committee on Crime Prevention, Corrections & Safety Final Analysis, Bill No. HB953(PCB CPCS 01-03), June 26, 2001. It is therefore clear that the statement of intent in chapter 2001-58 is meant to apply to pending cases, which would include the appeal now before us.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 863 So. 2d 1205 - State v. Ruiz · 850 So. 2d 383 - Floyd v. State