Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 273 SO2D 169 - Ladnier v. State

Ladnier v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2019

24 state decisions

7019731980199020002010decided

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 204 So. 2d 158 - McLelland v. State · Newton v. State · ECHOLS FUTRELL KELLY v. State · 258 So. 2d 436 - Alston v. State · 261 So. 2d 453 - Cromeans 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “On all applications for a continuance the party shall set forth in his affidavit the facts which he expects to prove by his absent witness or documents that the court may judge of the materiality of such facts, the name and residence of the absent witness, that he has used due diligence to procure the absent documents, or presence of the absent witness, as the case may be, stating in what such diligence consists, and that the continuance is not sought for delay only, but that justice may be done. The court may grant or deny a continuance, in its discretion, and may of its own motion cross-examine the party making the affidavit. The attorneys for the other side may also cross-examine and may introduce evidence by affidavit or otherwise for the purpose of showing to the court that a continuance should be denied. No application for a continuance shall be considered in the absence of the party making the affidavit, unless his absence be accounted for to the satisfaction of the court. A denial of the continuance shall not be ground for reversal unless the supreme court shall be satisfied that injustice resulted therefrom.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The granting or refusing of motions which should have been made timely before trial, such as motions to produce and inspect that would be time consuming, are left to the sound discretion of the trial judge as are motions for continuances, and his ruling will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing that injustice resulted therefrom. ( 273 So.2d at 173 ).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the voluntary substitution of counsel by a litigant during the course of trial is not, of itself, grounds for a continuance. The same can be said for the voluntary substitution of counsel prior to 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.