861 So. 2d 434 - Foster v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “HAS SECTION ONE OF CHAPTER 2001-58, LAWS OF FLORIDA, LEGISLATIVELY OVERRULED DELGADO V. STATE, 776 So.2d 233 (Fla. 2000), AS TO CASES NOT FINAL AT THE TIME OF SUCH DECISION IN WHICH THE OFFENSES WERE COMMITTED ON OR AFTER FEBRUARY 1, 2000, THEREBY PERMITTING A TRIAL COURT TO INSTRUCT A JURY THAT IT MAY FIND A DEFENDANT GUILTY OF BURGLARY, DESPITE EVIDENCE SHOWING A LEGAL ENTRY INTO THE PREMISES AND THAT AN OFFENSE WAS COMMITTED THEREIN WHILE THE DEFENDANT REMAINED WITHIN NON-SURREPTITIOUSLY?”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. State · Davis v. State

2. “[T]he language quoted from [ Jimenez II, that "this Court's interpretation of the burglary statute in Jimenez's direct appeal was in harmony with the legislative intent,"] was clearly an additional reason offered by the court as to why Jimenez was not entitled to post-conviction relief; and not, as my colleagues in the majority suggest, a discussion of why the Delgado decision had not met the test for retroactivity. Given the Supreme Court's clear acknowledgment that Delgado was decided contrary to legislative intent, I simply do not understand how the majority remains in a quandary about whether Delgado remains good law.... I believe that the appellant's conviction for burglary with an assault should be affirmed based upon the court's pronouncement in [ Jimenez II ]. Although the Supreme Court did not expressly state in [ Jimenez II ] that it was receding from Delgado , it is quite clear that is what it did. For that reason, it is unnecessary for us to continue to blindly adhere to Delgado .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 859 So. 2d 486 - Fitzpatrick v. State

3. “By the time appellant stood trial, the Delgado court's new, definitive construction of section 810.02(1) was binding. The offense allegedly occurred before chapter 2001-58, section 1, Laws of Florida, took effect. By the time chapter 2001-58 was enacted, the Delgado court had already announced the controlling construction of section 810.02(1), Florida Statutes (1989), as to all cases not yet final as of August 24, 2000. The Legislature was powerless to alter the chronology of these historical facts or to blink their constitutional significance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 936 So. 2d 1198 - State v. Robinson