State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “... state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefor in imposing sentence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 524 So. 2d 781 - State v. Kohl · 529 So. 2d 78 - State v. Harrison

2. ““Defendant, the unmarried mother of six children born out of wedlock, was convicted of wrongfully receiving $4,682.00 in welfare benefits and $161.00 in food stamps over a two year period. The state’s evidence showed that defendant made wilful misrepresentations to her social workers concerning her eligibility for aid to families with dependent children (AFDC) and food stamps. On three occasions, in applying for AFDC benefits, she reported that the natural father of her children, Frank Warren, Jr., took no interest in the children and did not contribute in any manner to their support. Eligibility for AFDC benefits is dependent upon the deprivation of parental support through the continuous absence or incapacity of at least one parent. The continuous absence must be of a nature as to ‘either interrupt or terminate the parent’s functioning as a provider of maintenance, physical care or guidance for the child. ’ Each time the defendant applied for AFDC benefits, she was informed of her duty to give accurate information and to immediately report changes in her personal or financial condition. Evidence produced at trial showed that Frank Warren, Jr. did in fact take an active role in the raising of the children. He was present in the defendant’s home on most weekends, and occasionally during the week. He provided money for rent, utilities, and clothing for the children. It was clearly shown that there was no ‘parental deprivation’ present so as to make the defendant eligible for A”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith