761 So. 2d 1027 - State v. Stepansky’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Florida's sovereign authority [which] includes the ability to exercise criminal jurisdiction over acts committed outside the territorial limits of the State under the effects doctrine.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 819 So. 2d 208 - Black v. State · State v. Jack

2. “[A] state has jurisdiction to prescribe law with respect to: (l)(a) conduct that, wholly or in substantial part, takes place within its territory; (b) the status of persons, or interests in things, present within its territory; (c) conduct outside its teiritory that has or is intended to have substantial effect within its territory; (2) the activities, interests, status, or relations of its nationals outside as well as within its territory; and (3) certain conduct outside its territory by persons not its nationals that is directed against the security of the state or against a limited class of other state interests. Restatement, supra, § 402 (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, the Restatement recognizes that states may prosecute a person for an act committed outside the state on the basis that the act has a substantial effect within the state, similar to the ability to prosecute an act that occurred wholly or partially within the territory of the state. See id. § 402(1). This is in addition to the ability of states to prosecute on the basis that the defendant is a citizen, resi dent or domiciliary of the state. If the basis of jurisdiction is that the defendant is a state citizen or resident, the act must generally also have a significant effect within the State. See id. § 402 reporter’s note 5.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Jack

3. “Acts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within it, justify a State in punishing the cause of the harm as if he had been present at the effect, if the State should succeed in getting him within its power.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 819 So. 2d 208 - Black v. State