T.M. v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
February 2011
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 4 So. 3d 614 - EAR v. State · M.J.S. v. State · 26 So. 3d 725 - SG v. State · C.A.D. 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]hen logically and persuasively explain[ing] why, in light of these differing characteristics, one level is better suited to serving both the rehabilitative needs of the juvenile-in the least restrictive setting-and maintaining the ability of the State to protect the public from further acts of delinquency.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. DWG v. State“In E.A.R. v. State, 4 So.3d 614 , 638 (Fla.2009), the supreme court `announced a new, more rigorous analysis in which a trial court must engage before departing from DJJ's recommendation.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. DWG v. State“[a]rticulat[ing] an understanding of the respective characteristics of the opposing restrictiveness levels,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. DWG v. State
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.