839 So. 2d 271 - State v. Armant’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the present case, the court tried the defendant on both charges at once. Although there was no mention of consolidation, under such circumstances, the charges are considered as if they were joined and, for the purpose of determining defendant’s right to a jury trial, the possible punishment is the sum of the maximum period of confinement which the court could have imposed with regard to each crime. In this case, the sum of the maximum periods of confinement is greater than six months since the maximum period of confinement for resisting an officer is six months and the maximum period of confinement for disturbing the peace is ninety days. It follows that defendant was entitled to a jury trial.”

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

2. “Although the record does not reflect that either party moved to consolidate the two bills of information, as was the case in Homung, the two cases were at all times treated as though they were consolidated. The defendant was arraigned on both cases at the same time, each minute entry contains the numbers of the two cases, the cases were tried together, a single verdict was rendered, and the defendant was sentenced on both cases at the same time. Thus, the charges should be considered consolidated for all practical purposes. Gardner, 458 So.2d at 1017 .”

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

3. “requested that the court note his intention to take supervisory writs”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 261 So. 3d 801 - State v. Vogel