Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 366 So. 2d 387 - Shue v. State

366 So. 2d 387 - Shue v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
October 2002
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2002

1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

901978198019902000decided

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 Woodson v. North Carolina · Coker v. Georgia · Roberts v. Louisiana · 283 So. 2d 1 - State v. Dixon · 322 So. 2d 908 - Tedder 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The trial judge ignored every aspect of the medical testimony in this case when he found that no mitigating circumstances existed. There was almost total agreement on Huckaby's mental illness and its controlling influence on him. Although the defense was unable to prove legal insanity, it amply showed that Huckaby's mental illness was a motivating factor in the commission of the crimes for which he was convicted. Our review of the record shows that the capital felony involved in this case was committed while Huckaby was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, and that while he may have comprehended the difference between right and wrong his capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and to conform it to the law was substantially impaired. These findings constitute two mitigating circumstances which should have been weighed in determining his sentence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.