692 So. 2d 924 - Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “DOES FLORIDA LAW PROVIDE A QUALIFIED REPORTER'S PRIVILEGE AGAINST THE DISCLOSURE OF NONCONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION RELEVANT TO A CIVIL PROCEEDING?”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 720 So. 2d 230 - Morris Communications Corp. v. Frangie · 704 So. 2d 1143 - Morris Communications Corp. v. Frangie

2. “The events underlying Davis's conviction began with the January 1990 termination of his romantic relationship with Nicole Terry. In the months following, Davis's behavior towards Terry became increasingly hostile and in May of 1991 she successfully petitioned for an injunction proscribing future contact. The record indicates that Davis largely ignored the injunction. Specifically, on December 27, 1991, while in her car driving over the Skyway Bridge, Terry observed Davis following closely behind her. An erratic and reckless chase ensued. The chase abruptly finished when Davis's car collided with the rear of Terry's. Throughout the proceedings below, Davis has consistently seized upon Terry's admission that she stepped on her car brakes just before the accident—the implication being that she intended and, in fact, caused Davis to strike the rear of her car.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 720 So. 2d 220 - State v. Davis

3. “As indicated in the concluding portion of the opinion, the Court states that no harassment of newsmen will be tolerated. If a newsman believes that the grand jury investigation is not being conducted in good faith he is not without remedy. Indeed, if the newsman is called upon to give information bearing only a remote and tenuous relationship to the subject of the investigation, or if he has some other reason to believe that his testimony implicates confidential source relationships without a legitimate need of law enforcement, he will have access to the Court on a motion to quash and an appropriate protective order may be entered. The asserted claim to privilege should be judged on its facts by the striking of a proper balance between freedom of the press and the obligation of all citizens to give relevant testimony with respect to criminal conduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 696 So. 2d 399 - Kidwell v. State