Barnishin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 491 So. 2d 543 - Daniels v. State · 545 So. 2d 851 - Franklin v. State · 515 So. 2d 738 - Tal-Mason v. State · 398 So. 2d 815 - Pennington v. State · 452 So. 2d 938 - Martin 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any active sentence.” The only benefit of the concurrency term to Appellant was that he was not obligated to finish his misdemeanor jail sentence before beginning his felony sentence. . The supreme court, has “distinguish[ed] this situation from one in which the defendant does not receive concurrent sentences on multiple charges; in such a case the defendant 'is not entitled to have his jail time credit pyramided by being given credit on each sentence for the full time he spends in jail awaiting disposition.’”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gisi v. State · Ransone v. State“He should also have received credit on each sentence for the time he served in jail, as a condition of probation in both cases, from August 19, 2004, until August 31, 2004, awaiting a place in a drug treatment program.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Petscher v. State“Until-for the first time upon revocation of his probationthe trial court imposed consecutive sentences, the precise contours of the credit for the time he spent in jail between arrest and resentencing were not clear.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.