Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 SO2D 59 - Harvey v. State

Harvey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
7
states following
December 1993
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 1993

10 state decisions

501966197019801990decided

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 Fogler 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"The admonishment by the trial court was not prejudicial to the defendants. Any possible prejudice resulting therefrom was cured by the judge's clarifying charge. The clarifying charge, although not requested by defendants, was not an improper comment on the possible failure of the defendants to testify. Fogler v. State, 1928, 96 Fla. 68 , 117 So. 694 . The trial judge exercised great care to ensure that the defendants received a fair trial."”
    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.