Batey v. Dare’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
December 1999
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 721 So. 2d 224 - Harbert v. Harbert · 703 So. 2d 333 - Ex Parte State · 681 So. 2d 588 - H.A.S. v. C.S.
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"On August 8, 1997, Lauren E. Dare sued her husband, William R. Batey, for a divorce. Following a hearing, the court entered a pendente lite order on September 2, 1997. Included in the order was a `protection-from-abuse order,' restraining Batey from contacting the wife or from committing any further acts of abuse against her or against the couple's minor children; prohibiting Batey from harassing the wife or the children; and directing Batey to stay away from the marital home, the wife's workplace, and the children's school. "On November 4, 1997, the wife moved to hold Batey in contempt, alleging that he had threatened to commit further acts of violence upon her; that he had harassed, contacted, telephoned, and followed her; and that he had broken into the marital home. The next day, the trial court ordered Batey to appear on November 10, 1997, to show cause why he should not be found in contempt. Apparently, Batey did not appear, and an arrest warrant was issued. "On November 13, 1997, the trial court entered a judgment of divorce. Nothing in the record indicates that Batey was present at the divorce proceeding. The trial court again restrained Batey from `harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting, or otherwise communicating, directly or indirectly, with [the wife] or the minor children.' Additionally, by the order, Batey was `directed to stay away from the place of residence and place of employment of [the wife] and away from the minor children's school.' "On February 7”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Batey v. State“[a] defendant who has violated a protection order issued pursuant to this chapter by the commission of an act of abuse as defined in this chapter, or conduct other than abuse in violation of *Page 595 the order, shall' be subject to being held in contempt of court and shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Batey v. State“shall be subject to being held in contempt of court and.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Batey v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.