Emanuel v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently October 2016
20 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 State Ex Rel. Luban v. Coleman · 58 So. 2d 683 - Mitchell v. Parrish · 213 So. 2d 596 - Chavez-Rey v. Chavez-Rey · 515 So. 2d 434 - Roberts v. State · 386 So. 2d 253 - Duff v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under [State v.] Coleman, [ 138 Fla. 555 , 189 So. 713 (1939)] the court should not ‘weigh the conflicting evidence’ to de-^ermine if a witness is being truthful. In other words, the mere fact that the court believes one witness over another is insufficient to establish judicial knowledge that a witness’ testimony is false for the purpose of summarily adjudicating the witness in direct criminal contempt. To hold otherwise would create a chilling effect on a party’s exercise of his constitutional right to freedom of speech, access to the courts, and due process, [c.o.] Direct criminal contempt is a criminal sanction that may result in serious consequences, including immediate imprisonment. Ordinarily, under our constitutionally mandated system of due process, criminal sanctions cannot be imposed unless the full panoply of due process rights are applied. That is why, in the ordinary situation where perjury is suspected, a state prosecution for perjury is the preferred alternative.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"The power to punish direct criminal contempt is one of the most unusual of judicial powers: the judge who was the object or butt of the allegedly contemptuous conduct becomes the prosecutor and then sits in judgment over the very defendant who is said to have just assailed the judicial dignity. That precise circumstance is condoned nowhere else in the law. For that reason, the power must be cautiously and sparingly used (citations omitted)."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[p]erjury poisons the well from which justice flows. That is why, in the appropriate case, a prosecution for perjury should be brought to insure that judicial proceedings are not undermined by those who would intentionally give false testimony.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.