Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 351 SO2D 26 - Ivory v. State

Ivory v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
5
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

96 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably 488 So. 2d 62 - Williams v. State (1986), 413 So. 2d 741 - Hitchcock v. State (1982)

96 state decisions

46019771980199020002010decided

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 Horton v. New York · 95 So. 2d 525 - Smith v. State · 120 So. 2d 195 - Holzapfel v. State · 232 So. 2d 451 - Slinsky v. State · Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Inc. 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Any communication with the jury outside the presence of the prosecutor, the defendant, and defendant's counsel is so fraught with potential prejudice that it cannot be considered harmless.”
    24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “After the jurors have retired to consider their verdict, if they request additional instructions or to have any testimony read to them they shall be conducted into the courtroom by the officer who has them in charge and the court may give them the additional instructions or may order the testimony read to them. The instructions shall be given and the testimony read only after notice to the prosecuting attorney and to counsel for the defendant.”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"The rule of law now adopted by this Court is obviously one designed to have a prophylactic effect. It is precisely for that reason I join the majority. A `prejudice' rule would, I believe, unnecessarily embroil trial counsel, trial judges and appellate courts in a search for evanescent `harm,' real or fancied." Id. at 28 (England, J., concurring).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.