923 So. 2d 335 - State v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We are unable to determine from the record whether dismissal of the indictment on any of those [grounds] would have been proper. For example, the triggering date for a speedy-trial analysis is unclear from the record; we are unable to determine whether the time for speedy-trial purposes started running in 1995 or upon his 2004 indictment; therefore, we cannot determine what portion of that time would be viewed under a speedy-trial analysis and what portion of the time would be reviewed under a due process pre-indictment delay analysis. Similarly, the trial court is in the better position to first determine whether vindictiveness should be presumed and which party bore the burden of establishing either vindictiveness or the lack thereof, as the case may be. Thus, we express no opinion as to the merits of those allegations. The trial court should issue written findings of fact as to the merits of Murray’s remaining motions to dismiss, because it appears that those motions remain pending in the circuit court. If the trial court determines that additional evidence or proceedings are necessary, the trial court should exercise its discretion accordingly.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Peterson v. State · Murray v. State

2. “"This cause having come before the Court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss, the same having been considered, it is hereby "Ordered Adjudged and Decreed said Motion is Granted based upon the previous opinions and instructions of the appellate courts."”

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

3. “The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no person shall `be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.' United States Const., Amend. V . We recently addressed this issue in another case:”

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