427 So. 2d 1248 - State v. Rambin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Assuming the validity of this finding * * *, [the acquittee] violated the most fundamental prohibition of natural and positive law. * * * [T]he fact that [the acquittee] committed such an act bespeaks an insidious proclivity deeply and inextricably rooted in his now outwardly benign psyche. [The acquittee] has manifested the capacity to perpetrate the most vicious of human acts, and this fact necessarily plays a predominant role in the dangerousness analysis which is dis-positive in granting or denying release.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Perez · 648 So. 2d 1319 - State v. Perez

2. “[W]e are constrained by salient factual distinctions between Collins and the instant case to reach a different result herein. In Collins the applicant had been charged with attempted armed robbery, while in the instant case we are dealing with the more grievous offense of murder. The cases are further distinguished by the demonstrated propensity of our applicant to drink, resist medication, and violate probation. Furthermore in Collins the evidence that the defendant, if medication were discontinued, would suffer a relapse was said to be "tentative." In other words, we find our case to more nearly resemble Thompson than Collins .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 563 So. 2d 841 - State v. Perez

3. ““The determination of whether an insanity acquittee poses a danger to himself or others is not, in the context of evaluating an acquittee’s application for manumission, a strictly psychiatric one. The conclusion called for by the law in this instance is not medical, but a legal one. It involves not merely psychiatric findings, but rather the application of legal standards to those findings, the interpretation according to principles of law of those findings. If this were not the case, doctors — and not district judges — would have the legal authority to render discharge decrees.””

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