985 So. 2d 446 - Ex Parte 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. ““(c) Documents and Tangible Objects. Upon written request of the defendant, the prosecutor shall, within fourteen (14) days after the request has been filed in court as required by Rule 16.4(c), or within such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by the court, on motion, for good cause shown, permit the defendant to analyze, inspect, and copy or photograph books, papers, documents, photographs, tangible objects, controlled substances, buildings or places, or portions of any of these things, which are within the possession, custody, or control of the state/municipality and: “(1) Which are material to the preparation of defendant’s defense; provided, however, that the defendant shall not be permitted to discover or to inspect reports, memoranda, -witness lists, or other internal state/municipality documents made by the prosecutor or the prosecutor’s agents, or by law enforcement agents in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case, or statements made by state/municipality witnesses; “(e) Information Not Discoverable. ... [T]he discovery or inspection of reports, memoranda, witness lists, or other internal state/municipality documents made by the prosecutor or the prosecutor’s agents, or by law enforcement agents, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the case, or of statements made by state/municipaMy witnesses or prospective state/municipality witnesses, is not authorized.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 2 So. 3d 806 - Ex Parte Turner · 66 So. 3d 220 - Hutchinson v. State

2. “This Court has for several years been using the phrase `exceeded its discretion' rather than the phase `abused its discretion.' The word `abused' has a negative connotation this Court does not believe is useful in describing the judicial acts of our trial court judges, thus prompting us to use the word `exceeded.' The standard of review remains the same.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 991 So. 2d 782 - Ex Parte Hall