618 So. 2d 781 - Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
July 2007
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 351 So. 2d 47 - Krueger v. State · 398 So. 2d 514 - Thomson v. State · 443 So. 2d 164 - Sewell v. State · 559 So. 2d 319 - Fischer 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[c]riminal contempt requires some willful act or omission calculated to hinder the orderly functions of the court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Woodie v. Campbell · Gregg v. State“THE DEFENDANT: Am I going to have an opportunity to be heard today? THE COURT: No. THE DEFENDANT: I object. I have an objection— THE COURT: What good cause have you got to show by disrupting this court, and after I said you would not be permitted to be heard, why I should not hold you in contempt of court? THE DEFENDANT: Due process. THE COURT: No good cause having been shown, it is the judgment and order of this court that you are in contempt of court and are hereby sentenced to 180 days in the Orange County Jail, to run consecutive to any. prison sentence you are now serv-ing_ Take him out.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gregg v. State
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.