987 So. 2d 669 - Woods v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “. The trial court’s failure to ensure that .Mr. Woods actually had counsel present to represent him regarding the alleged direct, criminal .contempt' violates the Florida Rules, of Criminal Procedure, even if it is unclear whether that action violates federal constitutional law. Although , the constitutional' dimension of this issue is worthy of. careful consideration, the issue in this, case is actually resolved by the requirements of a lowly rule of criminal procedure. . * The Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure apply in all criminal proceedings in Florida state courts “including proceedings involving direct and indirect' criminal contempt.” Rule 3.111(a) provides, for appointment of counsel at first appearance, and rule 3.111(b) requires counsel for indigent persons in all prosecutions for offenses punishable by incarceration. '' '”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pole v. State