J.H. v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
April 2017
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 4 So. 3d 614 - EAR v. State · A.J.V. v. State · M.S. v. State · Harrison v. CORONET INDUSTRIES, INC. · 26 So. 3d 725 - SG 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.
“(1) Articulate an understanding of the respective characteristics of the opposing restrictiveness levels including (but not limited to) the type of child that each restrictiveness level is designed to serve, the potential “lengths of stay” associated with each level, and the divergent treatment programs and services available to the juvenile at these levels; and (2) Then logically and persuasively explain why, in light of these differing characteristics, one level is better suited to serving both the rehabilitative needs of the juvenile—in the least restrictive setting—and maintaining the ability of the State to protect the public from further acts of delinquency.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. A.V. 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.