128 So. 3d 879 - Kipp v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 246 So. 2d 771 - Richardson v. State · State v. Schopp · 819 So. 2d 705 - Cox v. State · 928 So. 2d 1138 - Scipio v. State · 483 So. 2d 761 - Raffone 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.
“Where a discovery violation has occurred, the failure to conduct a Richardson hearing is not per se reversible error, but rather is subject to a harmless error analysis. See State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016, 1020-21 (Fla.1995). The relevant inquiry is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the discovery violation ‘materially hindered the defendant’s trial preparation or strategy.’ ” Scipio v. State, 928 So.2d 1138, 1150 (Fla.2006).... An analysis of procedural prejudice “considers how the defense might have responded had it known about the undisclosed piece of evidence and contemplates the possibility that the defense could have acted to counter the harmful effects of the discovery violation.” Scipio, 928 So.2d at 1149 .”
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.