Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 125 SO3D 928 - Thomas v. State

Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
October 2017
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 762 So. 2d 870 - Stoll v. State · Mariano v. State · Padgett 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “§ 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (2012). [I]n order for an excited utterance to be admissible, the following requirements must be met: (1) there must have been an event startling enough to cause nervous excitement; (2) the statement must have been made before there was time to contrive or misrepresent; and (3) the statement must have been made while the person was under the stress of excitement caused by the startling event. Stoll v. State, 762 So. 2d 870, 873 (Fla. 2000).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he party seeking to qualify a statement as an excited utterance must lay a proper foundation for its admission.”
    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.