Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The supreme court [has] explained that for conduct to be considered direct criminal contempt, 'all of the acts underlying the contemptuous conduct must be committed in open court in the presence of the judge.' " Brown v. State, 226 So. 3d 369, 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Plank v. State, 190 So. 3d 594, 606 (Fla. 2016)). "If the judge needs to rely on statements and testimony from others regarding their knowledge about the contemptuous acts, the misconduct is no longer considered direct criminal contempt because additional testimony or explanation is necessary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. MAURICE ARSENIO VIDANA v. STATE OF FLORIDA

2. “[w]henever a judge must take testimony during a criminal contempt proceeding or rely on additional evidence not directly observed by the trial judge, the proceeding is no longer direct criminal contempt but becomes indirect criminal contempt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. MAURICE ARSENIO VIDANA v. STATE OF FLORIDA

3. “The supreme court [has] explained that for conduct to be considered direct criminal contempt, 'all of the acts underlying the contemptuous conduct must be committed in open court in the presence of the judge.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. MAURICE ARSENIO VIDANA v. STATE OF FLORIDA