Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Roviaro v. United States · 179 So. 2d 873 - Spataro v. State · 534 So. 2d 864 - State v. Zamora · 456 So. 2d 923 - Johnson v. State · 638 So. 2d 995 - Jean 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As this court and others have explained: Disclosure of a confidential informant is required if an informant’s identity or content of his communication is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused or is essential to a fair determination of a cause. The first component necessarily centers around a specific defense asserted by the defendant in the case, as to which the informant’s testimony is material and helpful. See State v. Zamora, 534 So.2d [864,] 868 [ (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)]. The second component concentrates on general due process considerations and is not confined to a defense raised by the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Medina
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.