13 So. 3d 170 - KRAMPERT v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
August 2017
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Lambert v. People of the State of California · 684 So. 2d 736 - Chicone v. State · 868 So. 2d 512 - State v. McCormick · 469 So. 2d 194 - Carter v. State · Penalver 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The officer’s] statements were not hearsay because they were not- offered to prove the truth of what the deputy stat ed but to prove or explain [the defendant’s] own subsequent conduct. The evidence that [the defendant] offered was relevant to address the-knowledge element of the crime, that his failure to reregister was not knowing or intentional failure..”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jenkins v. State
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.