547 So. 2d 279 - Stevens v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
July 2006
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Ex parte Biggers · 351 So. 2d 47 - Krueger v. State · 398 So. 2d 514 - Thomson v. State · 352 So. 2d 110 - Ray v. State · 381 So. 2d 757 - Litus v. McGregor
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The courts of this state have consistently held that criminal contempt requires some willful act or omission calculated to hinder the orderly functions of the. court. Sewell v. State, 443 So.2d 164 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Also, an act which is calculated to embarrass, hinder or obstruct the court in the administration of justice or which is calculated, to lessen its authority or dignity constitutes a contempt, and further intent is an essential element of contempt. Thomson v. State, 398 So.2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).”
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.