433 So. 2d 29 - MAR v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
April 1994
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 419 So. 2d 1194 - Thomas v. Ratiner · 347 So. 2d 1021 - Fresneda v. State · 411 So. 2d 1361 - Bentley v. State · E. Y. v. State · Kroenke v. State
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We do not agree that the trial judge may not order restitution in this case merely because he did not find appellant guilty of criminal mischief with respect to the damage to the vehicle. Appellant's conduct in committing the battery and in chasing the victim may have directly or indirectly proximately caused or substantially contributed to the damage done to the vehicle. This was a matter for the trial judge to determine.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“to make restitution for the damages to the vehicle `under terms and conditions specified by H.R.S.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.