Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 120 Fla. 707 - McCall v. State

McCall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
July 2004
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently July 2004 · most notably Simmons v. State (1939), Carlile v. State (1937)

40 state decisions

10019351940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Bessie Cannon v. State of Florida · People v. Wells · Lee v. State · Studstill v. State · Hall 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"`Gentlemen, certain evidence has been offered by the State in the form of documents, which will be read to the jury. This evidence is introduced solely to furnish light upon the guilt or innocence of Coy Strickland described in the indictment under which the defendant is now on trial. You understand that Coy Strickland is not on trial but in the State's proof it is necessary to prove that Coy Strickland, named in the indictment, was the principal in the alleged homicide, and the evidence which is about to be read to you is admitted solely for the purpose of throwing light upon the guilt or innocence of Coy Strickland, and cannot and must not be considered by the jury as affecting the guilt or innocence of the defendant now on trial, Jim O. McCall. * * *"”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is well settled that where an indictment charges two persons with the crime of unlawful homicide, one of them being charged as principal in the first degree and the other as principal in the second degree, the person charged as principal in the second degree may be put on trial and may be convicted before the trial of or the conviction of the principal in the first degree and this may be done, although the principal in the first degree has been acquitted of the charge. See Rooney v. U. S., 203 Fed. 928 , 122 C.C.A. 230 . . .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Now, it is true that the trial judge did what he could to correct the improper arguments presented, but it occurs to us that he ‘locked the stable after the horse was gone.’ The harm had been done.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.