Dante Martin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Martin] was a member of the percussion section of the Florida A & M University's marching band, the "Marching 100." Members of the percussion section are entitled to ride to away events in a motor coach known as "Bus C." [Martin] was president of Bus C. A tradition or ritual known as "Crossing Bus C" has existed at the University for some time. The ritual consists of three components: 1) the hot seat, 2) the prepping, and 3) the crossing. During the hot seat, the participant takes a seat on Bus C (near the front) and is struck or hit repeatedly by others, including members of the percussion section. Next, the participant is prepped. During the prepping, the participant stands up and places his or her hands on the luggage rail and is then slapped a number of times with full force by the others on the bus. After the prepping, the participant crosses from the front of the bus to the back while others slap, kick, and punch the participant. [Martin], as bus president, decided when someone could cross Bus C. On [November 19, 2011], Keon Hollis, Robert Champion, and [Martin], as members of the Marching 100, performed at the Florida Classic in Orlando, Florida. Immediately following the band's performance, [Martin] asked Hollis if he planned to cross the bus. Hollis indicated that he wanted to do so. Later, Jonathan Boyce, also a member of the band, received a text from [Martin] asking him to convey to Hollis and Champion that if they wanted to cross "it's available" to them. That n”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dante Martin v. State of Florida

2. “When addressing constitutional challenges to statutes based on the doctrines of overbreadth and vagueness, [a] court's first task is to determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. If it does not, then the overbreadth challenge must fail. The court should then examine the facial vagueness challenge and, assuming the enactment implicates no constitutionally protected conduct, should uphold the challenge only if the enactment is impermissibly vague in all of its applications. A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others. A court should therefore examine the complainant's conduct before analyzing other hypothetical applications of the law. State v. Kahles , 644 So.2d 512 , 512-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (quoting Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. , 455 U.S. 489 , 494-95, 102 S.Ct. 1186 , 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982) ), approved , 657 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1995) (footnotes omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dante Martin v. State of Florida

3. “It is not a defense to a charge of hazing that: (a) The consent of the victim had been obtained; (b) The conduct or activity that resulted in the death or injury of a person was not part of an official organizational event or was not otherwise sanctioned or approved by the organization ; or (c) The conduct or activity that resulted in death or injury of the person was not done as a condition of membership to an organization.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dante Martin v. State of Florida