604 So. 2d 883 - Paul v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2019
16 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 398 So. 2d 514 - Thomson v. State · 313 So. 2d 135 - Kranis v. Kranis · Crutchfield v. Crutchfield
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For a person to be held in contempt of a court order, the language of the order must be clear and precise, and the behav ior of the person must clearly violate the order. Here, the order specified the time and place of supervised visitation, but it did not go further and bar Paul from telephoning, corresponding with, or seeking to catch glimpses of her children in public places. Paul testified she did not think the order forbid her from trying to make such contacts with her children. Intent is an essential element of contempt, and absent an admission by the charged person, it must be established by circumstantial evidence. Thomson v. State, 398 So.2d 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). In this ease, the circumstantial evidence is not “inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” Thomson . It is quite plausible Paul had no willful intent to violate the court order.”
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.