State v. Freund’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although the precise issue confronting us has not previously been decided in Florida, courts in other states have concluded that a denial of a petition for dependency does not bar a criminal prosecution even where there is a specific finding in the dependency case that the misconduct did not occur. In State v. Cleveland, 58 Wash.App. 634 , 794 P.2d 546, 551 (1990), rev. denied, 115 Wash.2d 1029 , 803 P.2d 324 (1990), and cert. denied, 499 U.S. 948 , 111 S.Ct. 1415 , 113 L.Ed.2d 468 (1991), the petition for dependency alleged that a stepfather had sexually abused his 8 year-old stepdaughter and that the child’s mother was not taking appropriate action to prevent it. The trial court found that the state had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged sexual abuse had occurred and dismissed the petition. Criminal charges were then brought, the stepfather was convicted, and he argued on appeal that his prosecution was barred by collateral estoppel. In concluding that the criminal prosecution was not barred, the court stated: Dependency proceedings are often attended with a sense of urgency, are held as promptly as reasonably possible, and the entire focus of the proceeding is the welfare of the child. The focus being more narrow than in a typical felony trial, the State normally does not need, nor does it perform, the extensive preparation typically required for felony trials. Furthermore, the prosecutor uses many more resources in developing a felony prosecutio”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Criner v. State

2. “[a] new determination of the issue is warranted by differences in the quality or extensiveness of the procedures followed in the two courts or by factors relating to the allocation of jurisdiction between them.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 921 So. 2d 631 - Cook v. State

3. “[t]here is a clear and convincing need for a new determination of the issue . . . because of the potential adverse impact of the determination on the public interest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 921 So. 2d 631 - Cook v. State