State v. Wood’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Flanagan v. State · 911 So. 2d 130 - Mendana v. Mendana

2. “The issuance of an order nunc pro tunc is a mechanism by which the court corrects errors which are primarily clerical in nature. This instrument is not, however, available for the benefit of parties if there has been a failure to observe proper procedure. In the present case, it was the trial judge who failed to comply with the requirements in rule 3.840(f) to "sign and enter of record a judgment of guilty or not guilty" at the conclusion of the hearing. A court's incorrect action or failure to act does not warrant the entry of a nunc pro tunc decision.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carridine v. State

3. “apprise[s] the defendant of the specific acts for which he or she could be punished.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 911 So. 2d 130 - Mendana v. Mendana