559 So. 2d 1274 - Arling v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently October 2015
12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 520 So. 2d 276 - State v. Williams · 472 So. 2d 737 - JSH v. State · 549 So. 2d 682 - De Pantosa Saenz v. Rigau & Rigau, PA
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Was the damage or loss for which restitution is ordered caused directly or indirectly by the defendant’s offense? 2. Is there a significant relationship between the damage to the victim and the crime proved?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We believe the causation required between the offense and the damage under Williams is similar, if not identical, to the proximate causation required in tort between a tortious act and the resulting damage. See Fla. Std. Jury Instr. (Civ.) 5.1. Thus, the victim should be entitled to recover damages through criminal restitution if the causal connection between the criminal offense and the damage is comparable to that proximate causation which would allow the victim to relate comparable damages to a wrongful act in tort.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]t is reasonably foreseeable to a person who deals in stolen property that the act of selling stolen property may result in a third party filing litigation.”
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.