882 So. 2d 1067 - Nussbaumer v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2018
16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 655 So. 2d 91 - Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston · 197 W. Va. 734 - State v. Potter · Burger v. State · Magar v. State · 730 So. 2d 277 - Fernandez v. State
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The clergy communications privilege does not apply unless the confider consults the member of the clergy `for the purpose of seeking spiritual counsel or advice.' § 90.505(1)(b) [Fla. Statutes (2003)]. No reported Florida decisions address this requirement of the privilege. Courts from other jurisdictions have interpreted similar statutory provisions to exclude from the operation of the privilege communications made for purposes not related to religious or spiritual concerns. E.g., Magar v. State, 308 Ark. 380 , 826 S.W.2d 221 (1992) (finding privilege inapplicable to defendant's admission to minister's accusation of sexual abuse of minors where conversation was initiated by minister for disciplinary purposes and not for spiritual counseling); Burger v. State, 238 Ga. 171 , 231 S.E.2d 769 (1977) (holding defendant could not claim privilege concerning conversational statements to clergy member who was his friend and frequent companion concerning defendant's intent to kill his wife and her lover); Keenan v. Gigante, 47 N.Y.2d 160 , 417 N.Y.S.2d 226 , 390 N.E.2d 1151 (1979) (finding privilege inapplicable to defendant's communications to priest where the communications were made for purpose of securing defendant's entrance into a work release program). The common thread in such cases `is that the privilege may not be invoked to enshroud conversations with wholly secular purposes solely because one of the parties to the conversation happened to be a religious minister.' People v”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“communication between a member of the clergy and a person is `confidential' if made privately for the purpose of seeking spiritual counsel and advice from the member of the clergy in the usual course of his or her practice or discipline and not intended for further disclosure except to other persons present in furtherance of the communication.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The entry of an order compelling the disclosure of communications protected by a legal privilege is a departure from the essential requirements of the law.”). . On November 19, 2009, the Supreme Court amended rule 3.216(a) to its current form”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Manuel v. State
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.