Mix v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Hagerman v. Hagerman · 574 So. 2d 1114 - Bray v. Rimes · 595 So. 2d 259 - Brown v. State · 544 So. 2d 1161 - Pina v. Simon-Pina · 658 So. 2d 632 - Lindman v. Ellis
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Order to Show Cause. The judge, on the judge’s own motion or on affidavit of any person having knowledge of the facts, may issue and sign an order directed to the defendant, stating the essential facts constituting the criminal contempt charged and requiring the defendant to appear before the court to show cause why the defendant should not be held in contempt of court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sramek v. State · Tobkin v. State“[T]his and other courts have ruled that the failure to comply with rule 3.840 is fundamental error and no objection is required.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“must be strictly followed before a person is found guilty of indirect criminal contempt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.