788 So. 2d 515 - State v. Williams’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. “(3) Has been employed or consulted as an attorney in the cause, or has been associated with an attorney during the latter's employment in the cause;”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 874 So. 2d 318 - State v. Brown · 930 So. 2d 951 - State v. Connolly

2. “In Williams, 788 So.2d 515 , the fourth circuit, while considering whether harm resulted from the failure of the trial judge to be recused, stated: Defendant's argument herein is based on article 671(A)(3), which concerns merely the appearance of impartiality. There is no evidence that this defendant suffered any prejudice as a result of Judge Buras' failure to recuse herself. Unlike in Lemelle , wherein the judge represented the codefendant in the same cause he later presided over with the defendant, there is no evidence that Judge Buras had any personal involvement in defendant's cause. Although Judge Buras coincidentally was employed with the district attorney's office at the time the office was prosecuting defendant, she stated that she had no recollection of defendant or his case prior to assuming the bench.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 874 So. 2d 318 - State v. Brown

3. “That section, when read with the mandatory "shall" used in the opening paragraph of article 671, requires recusal upon the mere showing of employment in the case. There is no reference to whether that employment was of such consequence as to prejudice the judge, nor is there any requirement that the defendant show actual prejudice. The article simply and clearly states that the trial judge shall be recused when he has been employed as an attorney in the cause. The legislature, by providing for a mandatory recusal in this situation, has apparently concluded that the appearance of impartiality, as well as impartiality itself, outweighs the inconvenience caused by the recusal of the trial judge.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 874 So. 2d 318 - State v. Brown