Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 408 So. 2d 1024 - Jent v. State

408 So. 2d 1024 - Jent v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

156
cited by 156 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 147 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 156 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2013 · most notably 117 Wash. 2d 829 - State v. Lord (1992), Ford v. Strickland (1983)

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 147 state decisions

8801981199020002010decided

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 · Wingo v. Wedding · Briggs v. Connecticut · Murzyn v. United States · Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

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.

  1. “As a general rule, the problem presented to a trial court is whether scientific tests are so unreliable and scientifically unacceptable that admission of those test results constitutes error. Coppolino v. State, 223 So.2d 68 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), ... . A trial court has wide discretion concerning the admissibility of evidence, and, in the absence of an abuse of discretion, a ruling regarding admissibility will not be disturbed.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Fay v. Mincey · 426 So. 2d 76 - Brown v. State
  2. “[t]he level of premeditation needed to convict in the [guilt] phase of a first-degree murder trial does not necessarily rise to the level of premeditation in subsection (5)(i).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Cannady v. State · 575 So. 2d 165 - Douglas v. State
  3. “cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. 536 So. 2d 221 - Banda v. State · 416 So. 2d 804 - McCray 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.