State v. Rodriquez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a]ny person who knowingly ... [u]ses, transfers, acquires, traffics, alters, forges, or possesses ... a food stamp ... in any manner not authorized by law is guilty of a crime”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cuda v. State · Brake v. State

2. “because of the peculiar nature of the food stamp program, because it is a federal program, and because Chapter 409 gives notice that it is a federal program with federal regulations, we conclude that the Legislature, by the use of the language `not authorized by law' means not authorized by state and federal food stamp law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cuda v. State · Brake v. State

3. “Since the Legislature is presumed to have enacted a valid and constitutional law and since statutes are to be construed, when reasonably possible and consistent with protection of constitutional rights, in such a manner so as to avoid conflict with the Constitution, we conclude that the Legislature intended to incorporate federal law and regulations in effect at the time section 409.325(2)(a) was enacted. The incorporation of only the federal law in effect at the time of the enactment of section 409.325 may appear unworkable because changes in the federal law would not take effect in Florida. The Legislature, however, to avoid this problem, may update Chapter 409 each year, as they update' Florida’s corpoi*ate income tax statute by bringing forward the Internal Revenue Code each year.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 15 So. 3d 642 - Abbott Laboratories v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.