SIMINSKI v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
December 2015
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 975 So. 2d 538 - Malarkey v. State · 734 So. 2d 464 - Noland v. State · 432 So. 2d 163 - Dent v. State · Hebert v. State · Stewart 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Malarkey , we reversed and remanded, allowing the State to seek a restitution order “for only that property encompassed within the original charge against Malarkey as reflected by the affidavit supporting the arrest warrant and the discovery "materials referenced by the State at the change of plea hearing.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Medlin v. State“[WJheri a defendant agrees to pay restitution as part of a-plea agreement, the defendant’s agreement is limited to restitution arising out of the offense charged by the State as reflected in the information and/or by the factual basis for the plea set forth by the State when the plea is entered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Medlin v. State
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.