359 So. 2d 137 - State v. Sepulvado’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably State v. Sepulvado (1979), 433 So. 2d 688 - State v. Smith (1983)
65 state decisions
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 337 So. 2d 1177 - State v. Marks · State v. Madison · 346 So. 2d 694 - State v. George · State v. Lewis · 351 So. 2d 448 - State v. Gray
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“prejudicial conduct in or outside the courtroom makes it impossible for the defendant to obtain a fair trial.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Black · State v. Vidrine“C. The court shall state for the record the considerations taken into account and the factual basis therefor in imposing sentence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A. When a defendant has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, the court should impose a sentence of imprisonment if: (1) There is an undue risk that during the period of a suspended sentence or probation the defendant will commit another crime; (2) The defendant is in need of correctional treatment or a custodial environment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; or (3) A lesser sentence will deprecate the seriousness of the defendant’s crime. B. The following grounds, while not controlling the discretion of the court, shall be accorded weight in its determination of suspension of sentence or probation: (1) The defendant’s criminal conduct neither caused nor threatened serious harm; (2) The defendant did not contemplate that his criminal conduct would cause or threaten serious harm; (3) The defendant acted under strong provocation; (4) There was substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify the defendant’s criminal conduct, though failing to establish a defense; (5) The victim of the defendant’s criminal conduct induced or facilitated its commission; (6) The defendant has compensated or will compensate the victim of his criminal conduct for the damage or injury that he sustained; (7) The defendant has no history of prior delinquency or criminal activity or has led a law-abiding life for a substantial period of time before the commission of the instant crime; (8) The defendant’s criminal conduct was the result of circumstances unlike”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sepulvado · State v. Cox
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.