Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 293 So. 2d 810 - Griffin v. State

293 So. 2d 810 - Griffin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2019

16 state decisions

8019741980199020002010decided

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 Harper v. State · Nicholson v. State · 293 So. 2d 807 - McCray v. State · Prine v. State · Bruce 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The only other error assigned ... is that the state was allowed to bring out on cross-examination of James Griffin, a co-indictee, that he had been tried and convicted the preceding week and found guilty of the same murder. While this evidence was brought out by the state under the guise of showing the previous conviction of James Griffin, it was done in such a manner that the jury could not help knowing that James Griffin had been tried for the same offense the preceding week and found guilty. It was proper for the state to show that the witness James Griffin had been convicted of murder even though this conviction was on appeal... . However, it was not proper to do so in such a manner as to inform the jury that James Griffin, a co-indictee had been tried and convicted of the same offense... . ( 293 So.2d at 812 ).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It is well settled that in the absence of a conspiracy to commit a homicide, the mere presence of a person is not sufficient even though such person might have approved of the crime.”
    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.