882 So. 2d 1037 - Thomas v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 760 So. 2d 126 - Volusia County v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach · 790 So. 2d 1071 - Major League Baseball v. Morsani · 477 So. 2d 544 - Winfield v. Div. of Pari-Mutuel Wagering · 551 So. 2d 1186 - In re T.W. · 500 So. 2d 533 - Rasmussen v. South Florida Blood Service
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Courts must first determine whether the individual possesses a legitimate expectation of privacy in the information or subject at issue. If so, then the burden shifts to the State to show that (a) there is a compelling state interest warranting the intrusion into the individual's privacy and (b) the intrusion is accomplished by the least intrusive means. Legislation that infringes on the right to privacy will be invalidated unless it can survive the compelling state interest test.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Determining whether an individual has a legitimate expectation of privacy in a given case must be made by considering all the circumstances, especially objective manifestations of that expectation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Rasmussen v. S. Fla. Blood Serv., Inc., 500 So.2d 533, 536 (Fla.1987).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.