895 So. 2d 381 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The evidence in this case, like the evidence in Young , shows that Craig committed one continuous act of robbery against Gallahar. For the reasons stated above, the fact that Craig took property from both Gallahar and from the dry-cleaning business does not create two separate robbery offenses. Therefore, because Craig was twice placed in jeopardy by being indicted for and convicted of two separate charges of first-degree robbery when he in fact committed only one crime against one victim, one of Craig's convictions for first-degree robbery is to be vacated, along with the accompanying sentence."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McPherson v. State · 978 So. 2d 794 - Abrams v. State

2. “4 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 17.4(b), 2001 Pocket Part n. 66 (2d ed. 1999). See also Project, `Twenty-Ninth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure,' 88 Geo. L.J. 879 , 1293 (2000) (`when the government seeks to prove that a single act or occurrence results in multiple violations of the same statute, the rule of lenity requires only one punishment unless legislative intent to impose multiple punishments is shown').”

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

3. “` Townsend v. State , 823 So.2d 717 , 722 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001) (footnote omitted [in Girard ]).'”

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