Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 340 SO2D 1379 - State v. Ervin

State v. Ervin’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
2
states following
January 2016
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2016

16 state decisions

6019761980199020002010decided

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 277 So. 2d 126 - State v. Prieur · 278 So. 2d 781 - State v. Moore · 339 So. 2d 829 - State v. Smith

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. “Q. You all [referring to Eddie Lee Johnson and Wilfred Davis] pal around together a lot huh? A. Not that much. A. No? You're in that picture, you're in the McDonald's together, you're at the party together—you don't pal around that much? A. (No response). Q. You commit armed robberies together and murders together, don't you? BY MR. INEICHEN (defense counsel) Your honor, we object. BY THE COURT: Sustained. The defense assignment of error simply alleges prejudice. For the first time, in brief to this Court, he argues that he was entitled to a mistrial under Article 770 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The contention is not well-founded. The motion for a mistrial to which defendant is entitled when the prosecutor refers before the jury to "another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]o minimize the possibility of such prejudice to defendant [that] statutes ... exclude”
    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.