Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 403 So. 2d 936 - Odom v. State

403 So. 2d 936 - Odom v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
April 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2019 · most notably Barclay v. Florida (1983), Lambrix v. Singletary (1997)

1 federal appellate · 64 state decisions

4201981199020002010decided

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 · Hoffa v. United States · United States v. White · Lopez v. United States · United States v. Caceres

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

  1. “[p]artial inaudibility or unintelligibility is not a ground for excluding a recording if the audible parts are relevant, authenticated, and otherwise properly admissible.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Edwards v. State · Gonzalez v. State
  2. “constitutional principle applies ... regardless of the scope of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 405 So. 2d 462 - State v. Thomas · 418 So. 2d 1087 - Wright v. State
  3. “evidence that the victim died instantaneously from a single gunshot while facing away from the defendant, and that he or she had no awareness of what was about to happen, may preclude a finding that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, even where the offense was entirely unprovoked, the victim was defenseless, and the defendant engaged in substantial premeditation of the act”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 793 So. 2d 847 - Norris 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.