Sorey v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably 435 So. 2d 304 - Muwwakil v. State (1983), 483 So. 2d 13 - Brinson v. State (1986)
1 federal appellate · 40 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 397 So. 2d 1120 - Tibbs v. State · State v. Buggs · 351 So. 2d 972 - McArthur v. State · 71 So. 2d 899 - Mayo v. State · Jaramillo 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“determination of whether the circumstances are such that the print could have been made only at the time the crime was committed is to be made by the factfinder ... provided the court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, ... first deter mined that a reasonable-minded jury could find the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“... the prints are located in a place, on an object, or on a particular part of an object to which the general public does not have access, the hypothesis that the print was not placed on the object at the time of the crime is not one which the court must declare reasonable as a matter of law, and it remains for the jury to determine its reasonableness.... [S]uch proof, standing alone, is legally sufficient, and the jury may infer from it that the print was made at the time of the crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Where the sole evidence linking a defendant to the crime is fingerprints found in a place or on a thing accessible to the general public and there is no other evidence to show that the prints were made at the time of the crime, see, e.g., Williams v. State, 247 So.2d 425 (Fla. 1971), courts must conclude that a defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal.”
2 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.