Arthur v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]f after receiving the notice of revocation Arthur believed his driving record was in error his remedy was to have his record corrected, not to ignore the revocation and continue to drive.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 971 So. 2d 222 - State v. Alhindi · 855 So. 2d 1253 - Sorrell v. State

2. “We believe that the convictions appearing in the records maintained by the Department, records obtained from the courts as a part of the Department’s business records (records not disputed by defendant when he was notified that his license had been suspended), are sufficiently linked to defendant to constitute prima facie evidence that defendant committed the offenses reflecting his driver’s license and shifts the burden of going forward with the evidence to defendant. Unrefuted, the records are sufficient to sustain a conviction. See State v. Kahler, 232 So.2d 166 (Fla. 1970).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 1 So. 3d 226 - Ibarrondo v. State

3. “based on his driving record, and has thereby revoked his license, and not the underlying traffic offenses themselves, which is the element of the offense.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 856 So. 2d 1095 - Warren v. State