921 So. 2d 830 - Linn v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Section 831.02 provides that the crime of uttering a forged instrument has the following elements: (1) uttering and publishing as true a false, forged, or altered instrument; (2) knowing the instrument to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited; and (3) intending to injure or defraud.... Under section 831.02, it is not sufficient for the State to show that the defendant should have known the instrument was forged. Instead, the State is required to prove the defendant had actual knowledge that the check had been forged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 26 So. 3d 706 - Ginn v. State

2. “[t]he state is not required to "rebut conclusively every possible variation” of events which could be inferred from the evidence, but only to introduce competent evidence which is inconsistent with the defendant's theory of events. Once that threshold burden is met, it becomes the jury’s duty to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.”

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

3. “`present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 968 So. 2d 706 - Meus v. State