384 So. 2d 600 - Austin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2018
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · Doyle v. Ohio · 244 So. 2d 30 - Stevenson v. State · Griffin 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"However, we have carefully considered the entire record, and, in view of the overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, we hold that the error was harmless.[1] See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). The judgment of the lower court is affirmed." (Footnote omitted). 384 So.2d at 601 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“in order to take advantage of improper argument on the part of a prosecuting attorney, objection must be interposed at the time the statement is made, and the point will not be considered on appeal unless motion for a mistrial is timely made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Evidence of post-arrest silence is improper, because it violates the accused's right against self-incrimination.”
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.