Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 868 SO2D 647 - Davis v. State

Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
November 2004
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 675 So. 2d 1374 - Amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g) & Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800 · 660 So. 2d 703 - Abreu v. State · Kimbrough v. State · McGuire v. State · 840 So. 2d 1160 - Timmer 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “On January 5, 2004, Appellant timely filed a Motion to Correct Sentencing Error, pursuant to rule 3.800(b)(2). The trial court scheduled a hearing on the motion for February 25, 2004, but the hearing was not held because Appellant had not been transported to Seminole County from the Department of Corrections. The trial court rescheduled the hearing to March 24, 2004, in order to secure Appellant's presence. However, the new hearing date is outside the 60-day window within which the trial court must rule on the motion. Implicit in the trial court's order, therefore, was an extension of time for the court to hear and rule on the motion. Nevertheless, out of caution, Appellant filed the instant motion with this court seeking an extension of the 60-day time limit.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Davis v. State
  2. “When a trial court determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve a factual issue, it is possible that the court will need to utilize the entire 60-day period authorized by this rule. However, trial courts and counsel are strongly encouraged to cooperate and resolve these motions as expeditiously as possible because they delay the appellate process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Davis v. State

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.