Marrero 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. “In this case the jury had a videotape of the collision which destroyed four extremely tall impact-resistant doors, including one door with a special mechanism for handicapped entry. We agree with the trial court that based on common experience, the jury could reasonably conclude that the cost of repair or replacement easily exceeded $250 per door or $1000 in the aggregate. We therefore affirm the conviction and the restitution order.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 71 So. 3d 881 - Marrero v. State

2. “It has been said that “a trial court may conclude ‘that certain repairs are so self-evident that the fact-finder could conclude based on life experience that the statutory damage threshold has been met....’” T.B.S. v. State, 935 So.2d 98, 99 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (quoting A.D. v. State, 866 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)); S.P. v. State, 884 So.2d 136, 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Clark v. State, 746 So.2d 1237, 1241 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 71 So. 3d 881 - Marrero v. State

3. “the amount of damage is measured by the cost of repair or cost of replacement.. . . By contrast, under the theft statute, the general rule is that value means fair market value at the time of theft.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 30 So. 3d 676 - AD v. State