Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 288 SO2D 860 - Wells v. State

Wells v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
February 2015
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably 551 So. 2d 188 - Benson v. State (1989), Culberson v. State (1979)

38 state decisions

14019741980199020002010decided

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 Barker v. Wingo · Holt v. United States · Agnew v. United States · Matthews v. State · Carr 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If witnesses die or disappear during a delay, the prejudice is obvious. There is also prejudice if defense witnesses are unable to recall accurately events of the distant past. Loss of memory, however, is not always reflected in the record because what has been forgotten can rarely be shown.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of his [speedy trial] right, and prejudice to the defendant”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"The proper procedure for the district attorney to have used was simply to ask the appellant of what crimes or misdemeanors he had been convicted since appellant had already responded to his own attorney that he had been convicted of a crime. If he then failed to fully enumerate all of his prior convictions, then the district attorney could properly ask him, by way of refreshing his memory and to lay a predicate for impeachment, if he denied being convicted of a particular crime on a particular date in a particular court, but without going into the details of such crime or the punishment received. 288 So.2d at 64 ."”
    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.