Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 432 So. 2d 209 - State v. Moore

432 So. 2d 209 - State v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2013 · most notably 436 So. 2d 471 - State v. Sutton (1983), Dick v. Kemp (1983)

1 federal appellate · 62 state decisions

4101983199020002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Gregg v. Georgia · Manson v. Brathwaite · Witherspoon v. Illinois · Enmund v. Florida

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

  1. “The argument shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law applicable to the case. The argument shall not appeal to prejudice. The state’s rebuttal shall be confined to answering the argument of the defendant.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “... the doing of any of the following acts with the intent thereby to force the victim, or some other person, to give up anything of apparent present or prospective value, or to grant any advantage or immunity, in order to secure a release of the person under the offender's actual or apparent control: (1) The forcible seizing and carrying of any person from one place to another, or * * * (3) The imprisoning or forcible secreting of any person. Emphasis ours.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Before allegedly prejudicial argument requires reversal, the court must be thoroughly convinced that the jury was influenced by the remarks and that such contributed to the verdict.”
    3 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.