95 So. 3d 92 - State v. Hackley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he absurdity doctrine is not to be used as a freewheeling tool for courts to second-guess and supplant the policy judgments made by the Legislature. It has long been recognized that the absurdity doctrine 'is to be applied to override the literal terms of a statute only under rare and exceptional circumstances.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. National Auto Service Centers, Inc. v. F/R 550, LLC · 259 So. 3d 793 - State of Florida v. Dazarian Cordell Lewars

2. “An assault — by definition — always includes the threat to do violence. § 784.011(1), Fla. Stat. (2006). Battery, on the other hand, does not necessarily involve the threat or use of force or violence. § 784.03(1), Fla. Stat. (2006); Hearns, 961 So.2d at 218. The Legislature could rationally have intended — as the plain language of the PRR statute suggests — to subject a defendant to PRR sentencing for committing a felony that necessarily involves violence or the threat of violence, but not for a felony that can be committed without violence or the threat of violence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Suffield v. State

3. “The first place we look when construing a statute is to its plain language–if the meaning of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we look no further.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. JAMES WILLIAM BRAINE v. STATE OF FLORIDA