391 So. 2d 133 - Dolvin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
155 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably 392 So. 2d 1280 - Sanders v. State (1980), 494 So. 2d 124 - Magwood v. State (1985)
155 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 368 So. 2d 871 - Cumbo v. State · Odom v. United States · Riggs v. United States · White v. State · Roberts v. United States
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In reviewing a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, this court must view that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. The test to be applied is whether the jury might reasonably find that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt; not whether such evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis but guilt, but whether a jury might reasonably so conclude. United States v. Black , 497 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1974); United States v. McGlamory , 441 F.2d 130 (5th Cir. 1971); Clark v. United States , 293 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1961).”
42 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Barger v. State · Lundy v. State“The mere presence of a person at the time and place of a crime is not sufficient to justify his conviction for the commission of the crime.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dossey v. State · Thomas v. State“"It has been admitted both the state and the defendant have told you that this case is a circumstantial evidence case. The best way I know to define 'circumstantial evidence' is by example. I haven't thought of any better definition. Since we don't get a whole lot of snow down here I usually define it in terms of rain and define it this way. If you and I came in this morning at eight o'clock and sat down in this courtroom and the blinds were closed and we started working and when we left to come in the courtroom we left our cars out in the parking lot and the ground was dry and there wasn't any moisture on the windows or anything, and you and I worked all day and we left here at five and went back out to get in our car to go home and we walked outside the front door downstairs and the cement out there was wet and we got in our car and our windshield was wet and we had to turn the windshield wipers on. And we were in here working all day long and we didn't see it rain or anything, we would have concluded based on what we saw out there that it rained while you and I were in here working. But we didn't see it. But we knew it happened. Now, that's my definition of circumstantial evidence. Now, what is the law regarding circumstantial evidence as far as proof of a case goes? Circumstantial evidence justifies a conviction only when it is inconsistent with any reasonable theory of innocence. The test for a conviction based on circumstantial *Page 1120 evidence is whether you, the ju”
4 later decisions 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.