384 So. 2d 134 - Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2005
16 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 Sorrells v. United States · United States v. Gomez-Rojas · Pierce v. United States · United States v. Groessel · United States v. Dickens
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.
“`Such defense is not available, however, where the officer or other person acted in good faith for the purpose of discovering or detecting a crime and merely furnished the opportunity for the commission thereof by the one who had the criminal intent.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wright v. State · Harris v. State“`Further, a plea of not guilty is not repugnant to the defense of entrapment.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Although it is conceivable, if all the facts bearing on the question were shown in evidence, that it could be said as a matter of law whether there was an entrapment, this cannot be said on a consideration of the evidence on a trial of the case. Not being determinable either way as a matter of law, it became a question for the jury to decide under proper instructions by the court. In view of the action of the court in ruling that there was no issue for the jury to decide on the question of entrapment, declining to allow attorneys for defendant to argue to the jury the matter of the question of entrapment, and refusing the charge requested by defendant on the subject on the sole ground that no jury question as to entrapment was presented and that on the ground that the defense of entrapment was not available to defendant, we must find that such action constituted error prejudicial to defendant and that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause remanded.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Aycock v. State
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.