696 So. 2d 435 - State v. Cohen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]t is unlawful for any person to knowingly possess a photograph, motion picture, exhibition, show, representation, or other presentation which, in whole or in part, he knows to include any sexual conduct by a child.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Strouse v. State · Pardue v. State

2. “a photograph, representation, or other presentation, the possession of which is punishable as a third degree felony under subsection 827.071(5)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Strouse v. State · 752 So. 2d 12 - State v. Farnham

3. “In United States v. Smith, 795 F.2d 841 (9th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1032 , 107 S.Ct. 1964 , 95 L.Ed.2d 535 (1987), the defendant similarly argued that unprocessed, undeveloped film did not constitute a “visual depiction” within the terms of the federal pornography statute because “substantial, complicated, and costly developing must be done before any visually perceptible image is created.” Id. at 846. The ninth circuit noted that “visual depiction” was not defined by statute. While agreeing that color film must “undergo an elaborate developing process before any image can be perceived by the human eye,” the ninth circuit concluded that exclusion of unprocessed film would be inconsistent with congressional intent; the fact that the film was undeveloped does not eliminate the harm to the child victims from the taking of the photographs. Id. at 846-47.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Getz v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole