Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 436 SO2D 50 - King v. State

King v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably 564 So. 2d 1060 - Porter v. State (1990), 645 So. 2d 377 - Spencer v. State (1994)

26 state decisions

1301983199020002010decided

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 · Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Edwards v. Arizona · Harrington v. California

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

  1. “Appellant contends the trial court improperly allowed testimony that he had severely beaten the victim twenty-three days prior to the killing. Appellant asserts that the circumstances of this beating were not similar to those of the killing and that the beating was too remote in time to be relevant to the case. Consequently, he argues, this evidence was admitted in violation of Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847 , 80 S.Ct. 102 , 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959), because it was utilized only to show propensity and not to prove an element essential to this offense. We disagree. We believe that the testimony was not remote in time, ... and was proper for identification since one of the theories of appellant’s defense was to imply that the victim’s present husband could have been the killer. Under these circumstances, we find the testimony admissible.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.