262 So. 2d 11 - Doe v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 1996
17 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 Roviaro v. United States · Gilmore v. United States · 194 So. 2d 250 - Westberry v. Daves Auto Parts · 110 So. 2d 495 - Harrington v. State · 232 So. 2d 444 - Monserrate 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion for disclosure of the identity of a confidential informant, for the purpose of finding what he knows or what he can testify regarding the transaction, cannot prevail against the well founded policy for nondisclosure. If the defendant has, or proposes to present a defense for the establishment of which it can be shown or reasonably concluded that the informant’s testimony will be of essential relevancy and materiality, so as to justify or require disclosure in face of the policy against it, the burden is on the defendant to make that appear, by his motion for disclosure or otherwise in the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Thennes
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.