Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 132 SO2D 329 - Leach v. State

Leach v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1961

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Jackson v. Denno (1964), Straight v. State (1981)

1 federal appellate · 52 state decisions

280196119701980199020002010decided

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 McNabb v. United States · Mallory v. United States · Crooker v. State of California · 109 So. 2d 7 - Singer v. State · Osslo v. California

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

  1. “gruesomeness of the portrayal is so inflammatory as to create an undue prejudice in the minds of the jur[ors] and [distract] them from a fair and unimpassioned consideration of the evidence.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"* * * For example, if after the trial it should develop that a juror was closely related by blood to deceased and had announced his conviction regarding the guilt of the accused and had misrepresented his position when examined, such a disqualification would enter into the very fundamentals of the trial itself. This is not so with reference to the failure of the juror to be a registered voter. The appellants make no contention that they were not fairly heard with an unprejudiced mind by the jurors in question. Their position offers no ground for reversal. Ex parte Sullivan, 155 Fla. 111 , 19 So.2d 611 ; Burns v. State, 89 Fla. 353 , 104 So. 447 ; Section 913.04, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.; 31 Am.Jur. `Jury' Sections 154-156." (132 So.3d at page 333) (See also Slaughter v. State, Sup.Ct.Fla. 1974, 301 So.2d 762 )”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “... (W)hen photographs are otherwise relevant they will not be held incompetent merely because they tend to prejudice the jury.”
    3 later decisions 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.