398 So. 2d 514 - Thomson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 27 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct a court in the administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or dignity ..., Clein v. State, 52 So.2d 117, 119 (Fla.1950); Ex parte Crews, 127 Fla. 381 , 173 So. 275 (1937). Intent is an essential element of contempt. Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So.2d 218 (Fla.1953); Young v. Miami Beach Improvement Co., 46 So.2d 26 (Fla.1950); Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. State, 338 So.2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) .... Intent, absent a statement thereof or an admission by the accused ... must be inferred from the acts of the accused and the surrounding circumstances, State v. J.T.S., 373 So.2d 418 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); i.e., it must be established by circumstantial evidence. Where circumstantial evidence alone is relied on to establish the commission of a crime or any essential element thereof, it must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. McArthur v. State, 351 So.2d 972 (Fla.1977).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 483 So. 2d 443 - Garcia v. Pinellas County · 518 So. 2d 1370 - In Re Weinstein

2. “[a]n act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder, or obstruct a court in the administration of justice, or which is calculated to lessen its authority or dignity.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 518 So. 2d 1370 - In Re Weinstein · 987 So. 2d 669 - Woods v. State