Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 437 SO2D 1087 - Huff v. State

Huff v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently March 2017

19 state decisions

801983199020002010decided

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 351 So. 2d 972 - McArthur v. State · 90 So. 2d 629 - Davis v. State · Cauley v. Strickland · Glassman v. State · Herring 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The state's evidence was clearly sufficient to have the case taken to the jury. The evidence that appellant was seen in the back seat of the death car with his parents an hour and a half before the murders were reported, the evidence that the killer had to be positioned in the back seat, the evidence that this car had been moved sometime subsequent to the murders, and the testimony of witness Joyner that he saw appellant alone driving a car immediately after the time of the murders, is evidence inconsistent with appellant's story and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. In light of the state's evidence, the jury could properly have found appellant's story to be unreasonable beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt. The trial court correctly denied appellant's motion for acquittal.”
    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.