Perry v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently January 1991 · most notably 293 So. 2d 44 - Lynch v. State (1974), State v. Hamilton (1991)
83 state decisions
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 Morris v. State · Taylor v. State · Jeffcoat v. State · Harris v. Commonwealth · Madison 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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where there is conflict in the testimony, it is for the jury to say what testimony they believe and what they will disbelieve. Where there is legal evidence sufficient, if believed by the jury, to support the verdict, it will not be disturbed on appeal, there being nothing to indicate that the jury were influenced by considerations outside the evidence. See Davidson v. State, 99 Fla. 732 , 127 So. 342 ; Brown v. State, 135 Fla. 90 , 184 So. 777 ; Danley v. State, 135 Fla. 28 , 184 So. 525 ; Davis v. State, 138 Fla. 798 , 190 So. 259 ; Taylor v. State, 139 Fla. 542 , 190 So. 691 , 124 A.L.R. 835 ; and cases cited therein.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Labarbara v. State“The granting of a mistrial should be only for a specified fundamental or prejudicial error which has been committed in the trial of such a nature as will vitiate the result... . However, when an alleged error is committed which does no substantial harm and the defendant is not materially prejudiced by the occurrence, the court should deny the motion for a mistrial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Hamilton“Where a witness has been impeached by proof of a prior conviction of crime, he may show the fact that he has served his time, or had been paroled or pardoned... . The State should have been permitted to ask the above question for the purpose of rehabilitating its witness... .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.