A State Digest is a topically arranged guide to court decisions. State digests cover state court cases as well as decisions of federal courts sitting in that state, and the U.S. Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court decisions in cases arising from that state. The Legal Information Center does not have current state digests for states other than Florida. For Florida, the Florida Digest indexes the Florida cases and the Southern Digest provided regional indexing until 1988.

A State Reporter consists of the volumes of published case decisons. State reporters are often not current, and some states use the regional reporter as the official state reports.

::Part I - Digests

1. Find the descriptive-word (subject) index volume(s) listing subjects covered by the cases indexed in the digest. Search the subject headings to find those pertinent to your legal research. Example:
   • HOMICIDE
   • Constitutional and statuatory-manslaughter - HOMIC 32
   The cite HOMIC 32 refers you to the digest volume containing the topic homicide and then to section of key #32 of the topic homicide (topic describes the type of law placed under them and are subdivided according to various points of law within that topic).
2. Digest volumes are alphabetically arranged by topics like an encyclopedia. Look at the spines of the digest volumes and notice the alphabetic range of topics within one volume. Find the digest volume homicide would alphabetically fall within.
3. When you find the correct digest volume for your topic, turn to your topic and to section or key #32.
4. Under key #32, you will find an abstract (summary) paragraphs of cases that illustrate the point of law under key #32. Following the text of the summary paragraph is a citation to the case the paragraph is describing.
5. Read through the summary paragraphs and decide which case(s) is pertinent to your research. Remember that the summary paragraphs are the same as the case headnotes. Write down the case cites to look up in the state or regional reporter. Don't forget to check the pocket supplement (found in the back of the volume) under the same key number to determine if there is a more current case law.
6. Other methods of finding case law in the digest are:
   • table of cases -- arranged by plaintiff / defendant
   • defendant / plaintiff tables
   • words and phrases index

::Part II - Reporters

1. From the digest you discovered a cite(s) to a pertinent case. Example:
   • 376 So. 2d 230
   This cite means volume 376 of Southern Reporter, Second Series, with the case beginning on page 230.
2. Find volume 376 of the reporter turn to page 230. The following are features of the printed case decision:
   • name of case (plaintiff / defendant)
   • docket #
   • court rendering decision
   • date of decision
   • subsequent action, if any
   • summary of case
   • decision, e.g. affirmed, reversed, etc.
   • headnotes (summaries of significant fact, includes key # and law topic of the case)
   • names of attorneys / judges
   • statement of facts
   • opinion of the court (explanation of the court's decision)
   • decision of the court (disposition of the case by court)

Example

230 Fla.376 SOUTHERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES

Name of Case: William D. COBB, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Docket Number: No. 53832. Supreme Court of Florida.

Date of Decision: March 29, 1979. Rehearing Denied Nov. 13, 1979.

Summary of Case: Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Broward County, Hort Soper, J., of unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act, and he appealed. The Supreme Court, England, C. J., held that:

1. Words "unnecessarily kill" in statute making it a second-degree felony to unlawfully kill another to prevent an unlawful act were sufficiently precise to meet constitutional standard of definiteness in penal statutes.
2. Evidence was sufficient to support finding that victim did not pose threat sufficient to support defendant's asserted belief that deadly force was necessary.
3. Manslaughter and culpable negligence instructions were proper.
4. Prosecutorial comments in closing argument did not constitute such grave error as to require mistrial.

Decision of the Court: Affirmed. Alderman, J., concurred in part; dissented in part; and filed opinion.

Topic and Key Note Headnote:

1. HOMICIDE (32): Words "unnecessarily kill" in statute making it a second-degree felony to unnecessarily kill another to prevent an unlawful act were sufficiently precise to meet constitutional standard of definiteness in penal statutes in light of other statutes providing that homicides committed while resisting another's unlawful act were punishable only if not excusable or if not justifiable. West's F.S.A. ss 782.02 et seq., 782.03, 782.11.
2. HOMICIDE (243): Evidence in prosecution of police officer for unnecessary killing of another to prevent an unlawful act was sufficient to support finding that victim did not pose threat sufficient to support officer's asserted belief that deadly force was necessary. West's F.S.A. ss 776.05, 776.07, 782.11.
3. HOMICIDE [309(1)]: Manslaughter and culpable negligence jury instructions were proper in prosecution of police officer for killing of arrested suspect during struggle. West's F.S.A. ss 782.07, 782.11.
4. HOMICIDE (53): Elements of general manslaughter, in connection with additional factor of resistance against another's attempt to commit an unlawful act, can constitute unnecessary killing manslaughter. West's F.S.A. s 782.11.
5. CRIMINAL LAW (867): Mistrial motion is appropriate only if error committed was so prejudicial as to vitiate entire trial.
6. CRIMINAL LAW (713): Prosecutorial comments during closing argument in prosecution of police officer for manslaughter did not constitute such grave error as to vitiate entire trial so as to require mistrial.

Names of Attorneys: Alan H. Schreiber, Public Defender and Stuart M. Lerner, Asst. Public Defender, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Robert L. Bogen, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Name of Judge: ENGLAND, Chief Justice.

Opinion: This case is before us on transfer of an appeal commenced in the Fourth District Court of Appeal.1 The court directly and

PW

Special thanks to P. Williams, 1990.