State v. Kinder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “that the time provisions of section 394.916(1) of the [Ryce Act] are mandatory unless a continuance is granted for good cause.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 907 So. 2d 505 - Osborne v. State · 911 So. 2d 1211 - Mitchell v. State

2. “Under the Act, once a commitment petition is filed and probable cause is found to exist, the detainee is required to be held without possibility of release until he or she is brought to trial. See § 394.915(5), Fla. Stat. (1999). The only limit placed upon this detention is the statutory provision providing that a detainee be brought to trial within thirty days of his or her initial detention. Moreover, although section 394.916, Florida Statutes (1999), allows for the thirty-day period to be continued, it also provides that such continuance may only be granted when the detainee will not be substantially prejudiced by it. See § 394.916(2). We conclude that the intent of the legislature in enacting the thirty-day time limit was to ensure that detainees be brought to trial without undue delay. Therefore, we also conclude that the thirty-day time limit is mandatory.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 830 So. 2d 817 - State v. Goode

3. “[T]he Legislature did not intend the thirty-day time period explicitly set out in the statute to be merely a "suggested" practice, particularly when, as illustrated by this case, failure to comply with the time limit may mean a person can be detained for months or years on end without trial based on an ex parte proceeding. This Court can think of no other context, civil or criminal, that would allow an individual to be detained indefinitely based on a probable cause determination where the individual had no right to appear. Such a practice is directly contrary to fundamental principles of due process set out in our federal and state constitutions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 907 So. 2d 505 - Osborne v. State