672 So. 2d 95 - Miller v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “THE COURT: Page 10, Johnny Miller. PROBATION OFFICER: I am not sure, he is under the influence of something. (Whereupon the Defendant was called several times) THE COURT: Mr. Miller, it appears you might be under the influence of something, is that correct? Let’s try the truth. THE DEFENDANT: M’am. THE COURT: Are you under the influence of some drug at this time? THE DEFENDANT: M’am. THE COURT: I am going to have you tested. Can you hear me? Mr. Miller, it appears you may be under the influence of some controlled substance? ATTORNEY: She said she thinks you are under the influence of some drugs or something, are you? THE DEFENDANT: Inaudible. ATTORNEY: He said he is on antibiotics. He got some sort of flu. English translation. THE COURT: Mr. Miller,- listen to me. At this time I am going-;to have them do a urine test on you. THE DEFENDANT: Yes M'am. THE COURT: Unless you want to tell me about what you had this morning. THE DEFENDANT: Allí did-was sat down for a while, I fell aslpep. THE COURT: If you are not going to tell what ydu are under; we will do a urine test and we will find out. If you are clean, no problem. ->If you are' not clean then you have a problem. THE DEFENDANT: I had a little coke. THE COURT: You had'a little coke this morning? ■ 1 THE DEFENDANT: Yes, M’am. THE COURT: You come, to court on a contempt proceedings completely gone? What is wrong with you? I need’to think about this. Have a seat. We need to think about -what needs to be done. ■”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Edge-Gougen v. State

2. “During the course of his appearance on an unrelated charge of indirect contempt, the defendant-appellant passed out in the courtroom and could not ■readily be revived because he had “had a little coke” that morning. 1 We conclude that the trial court properly found that this conduct obstructed the administra tion of justice in the case so as to justify a finding .of direct criminal. contempt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Edge-Gougen v. State