Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 190 SO2D 42 - Green v. State

Green v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably 289 So. 2d 472 - Owens v. State (1974), 418 So. 2d 238 - Coler v. State (1982)

29 state decisions

150196619701980199020002010decided

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 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · Shepard v. United States · Nickels v. State · Suarez v. State of Florida · Talley 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"* * * as we read Williams, the essential characteristics of evidentiary admissibility have not been materially altered. Evidence of other offenses which was admissible before Williams has been generally held admissible since Williams, and will undoubtedly continue so to be held in the future; and vice versa as to inadmissibility. We analyze Williams to mean that evidence of other offenses is admissible if — — it is relevant and has probative value in proof of the instant case or some material fact or facts in issue in the instant case; and — its sole purpose is not to show the bad character of the accused; and — its sole purpose is not to show the propensity of the accused to commit the instant crime charged; and — its admission is not precluded by some other specific exception or rule of exclusion."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 214 So. 2d 753 - Farnell v. State · 246 So. 2d 605 - Christie v. State
  2. “[t]he argument for inadmissibility is, in fact, more cogent.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Delgado v. State · 872 So. 2d 453 - Mims v. State
  3. ““ * * * with reference to the robbery of a Seven-Eleven Food Store, not otherwise identified as being the store or the robbery involved in the case on trial, [which] was not relevant to prove any fact or facts in issue before the jury, and its sole purpose and effect could only have been to show the bad character of the defendant when he had not put his character into evidence, and his propensity for committing the robbery in question.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. Dixon 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.