Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 399 SO2D 201 - State v. Davenport

State v. Davenport’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
March 2011
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2011 · most notably Connick v. Thompson (2011), State v. Smith (1983)

32 state decisions

2401981199020002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · Giglio v. United States · State v. Sepulvado · 381 So. 2d 416 - State v. Jones

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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If in such a situation the district attorney is wrong (and we say this without casting any aspersions whatsoever on the prosecutors of this state, because it is usually most difficult to determine whether or not inconsistencies or omitted information in witnesses' statements are material to the defendant's guilt), certainly the interests of justice would best be served by obtaining a judicial decision in this regard during the trial rather than later through post-conviction remedies. While such procedure will interrupt the trial and will be time consuming, we believe the added burden to our busy trial judges will be outweighed by the efficiency in the administration of justice. Id. at 204 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In Brady the request was specific. It gave the prosecutor notice of exactly what the defense desired. Although there is, of course, no duty to provide defense counsel with unlimited discovery of everything known by the prosecutor, if the subject matter of such a request is material, or indeed if a substantial basis for claiming materiality exists, it is reasonable to require the prosecutor to respond either by furnishing the information or by submitting the problem to the trial judge. When the prosecutor receives a specific and relevant request, the failure to make any response is seldom, if ever, excusable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"... we are convinced that under the circumstances of this case the trial judge did not abuse the wide discretion accorded him in sentencing. The maximum sentence which could have been imposed was 21 years (10 ½ years on each count to be served consecutively). One of the victims was harmed for life and the other was seriously wounded. A total of 7 ½ years of hard labor for these two unprovoked shootings is certainly reasonable and appropriate."”
    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.