731 So. 2d 126 - Barr v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he statute is not a blanket ban on all solicitation of business by a chiropractor, but rather, targets only those persons who solicit business for the sole purpose of making motor vehicle tort or PIP benefits claims. Although not the least restrictive means available to achieve the state's purpose, we hold the ban on such solicitation is reasonably tailored to the state's interest in preventing insurance fraud and raised premiums.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bradford · 774 So. 2d 871 - State v. Cronin

2. “A chiropractor could hire hundreds of telemarketers to solicit new patients full time and not be in violation of Florida's criminal statute, so long as the chiropractors are not soliciting persons for the purpose of filing a motor vehicle tort claim or claim for personal injury protection benefits—the limited restriction imposed by the statute.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bradford

3. “the statute passes constitutional muster because: 1) the challenged solicitation was not misleading; 2) the state's asserted interest behind this restriction— the prevention of insurance fraud—was substantial; 3) the regulation directly advanced this interest; and 4) the regulation was not more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 744 So. 2d 1268 - Hershkowitz v. State