Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 403 U.S. 384 - Simpson v. Florida

Simpson v. Florida’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

186
cited by 186 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

70 federal appellate · 105 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 186 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Wingate v. Wainwright (1972), 93 Wash. 2d 268 - State v. Dupard (1980)

70 federal appellate · 105 state decisions — followed in 16 states

120019711980199020002010decided

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 Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · 240 So. 2d 645 - Simpson v. State · 237 So. 2d 341 - Simpson 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 186 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““examine the record of a prior proceeding, taking into account the pleadings, evidence, charge, and other relevant matter, and conclude whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The ground upon which the state court resolved [Simpson’s] contention is plainly not tenable. Indeed, in Ashe itself, we specifically noted that “mutuality” was not an ingredient of the collateral estoppel rule imposed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments upon the States. Ashe, supra, [397 U.S.] at 443 [ 90 S.Ct. 1189 ], It is clear that Florida could not have retried [Simpson] a third time on the charge of robbing the store manager simply because it had previously secured a jury verdict of guilty as well as one of acquittal. And, had the second trial never occurred, the prosecutor could not, while trying the case under review, have laid the first jury verdict before the trial judge and demanded an instruction to the jury that, as a matter of law, [Simpson] was one of the armed robbers in the store that night.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “sole disputed issue at each of [petitioner's] trials”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.