Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 845 So. 2d 238 - James v. State

845 So. 2d 238 - James v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · 622 So. 2d 941 - Tripp v. State · 457 So. 2d 1361 - Fasenmyer v. State · Herring v. State · Harris 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We ... conclude that a trial court is not barred from accomplishing its original sentencing goals where a defendant successfully seeks to have a sentence overturned. This is true because there is no legitimate expectation of finality in a sentence a defendant seeks to overturn. [[Image here]] ... The double jeopardy clause does not automatically preclude the imposition of any legal sentence after a successful appeal, irrespective of whether the new sentence is greater than the original.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.