E.T. v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 347 So. 2d 422 - Pugliese v. Pugliese · 589 So. 2d 818 - In Re Petition of Florida Bar · 415 So. 2d 79 - Rowe v. Wille · 423 So. 2d 998 - Lopez v. State · 489 So. 2d 871 - Guzman 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The distinction between direct and indirect contempt is fundamental. Where the contemptuous conduct is committed in the immediate presence of the court, the contempt is defined as direct; where it is committed outside the court's presence, the contempt is indirect... . Whereas direct contempt may be punished summarily with the accused having only the opportunity to present evidence of excusing or mitigating circumstances, the procedures applicable to indirect contempt are more formal in nature... . It is well established that summary adjudication for direct contempt is not permitted where the alleged conduct took place, not in the presence of the judge, but at an earlier time and before a different trial judge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.