Dautel v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 785 So. 2d 1182 - Carpenter v. State (2001), Hudson v. State (2001)
33 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · Mayers v. United States · State v. Rolle · 537 So. 2d 103 - Forehand 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[O]nly the elements of the out-of-state crime, and not the underlying facts, should be considered in determining whether the conviction is analogous to a Florida statute for the purpose of calculating points for a sentencing guidelines scoresheet.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“When scoring federal, foreign, military, or out-of-state convictions, assign the score for the analogous or parallel Florida Statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(A) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another, not the spouse of the offender, when any of the following apply: (1) The offender knowingly coerces the other person to submit by any means that would prevent resistance by a person of ordinary resolution. (2) The offender knows that the other person's ability to appraise the nature of or the control his or her own conduct is substantially impaired. (3) The offender knows that the other person submits because he or she is unaware that the act is being committed. (4) The offender knows that the other person submits because such person mistakenly identifies the offender as his or her spouse. (5) The offender is the other person's natural or adoptive parent, or a stepparent, or guardian, custodian, or person in loco parentis. (6) The other person is in custody of law or a patient in a hospital or other institution, and the offender has supervisory or disciplinary authority over such other person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.