State v. Heathcoat’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Sochor v. Florida (1992), 785 So. 2d 1182 - Carpenter v. State (2001)
28 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 365 So. 2d 701 - Castor v. State · 424 So. 2d 758 - Hicks v. State · 419 So. 2d 634 - Thomas v. State · 411 So. 2d 1312 - Hubbard v. State · Spurlock 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“clearly understood the request and just as clearly denied the request”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rodriguez v. State · Higgs v. State“[T]he objectives of the contemporaneous objection rule are to "apprise the trial judge of the putative error and to preserve the issue for intelligent review on appeal." [ Thomas v. State ] 419 So.2d 634 at 636 [(Fla. 1982)] (quoting Castor v. State, 365 So.2d 701, 703 (Fla. 1978)). These objectives are accomplished when the record shows clearly and unambiguously that a request was made for a specific instruction and that the trial court clearly understood the request and just as clearly denied the request. In Hubbard v. State, 411 So.2d 1312 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), appeal dismissed, 424 So.2d 761 (Fla. 1982), the First District Court of Appeal correctly observed that [t]he primary thrust of the rule is to insure that the trial judge is made aware that an objection is being made and that the grounds therefor are enunciated. We do not believe that the rule was intended to approve or disapprove a special word formula; we will not exalt form over substance by requiring that counsel use the magic words, "I object," so long as it is clear that the trial judge was fully aware that an objection had been made, that the specific grounds for the objection were presented to the judge, and that the judge was given a clear opportunity to rule upon the objection.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(d) Objections. No party may raise on appeal the giving or failure to give an instruction unless the party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which the party objects and the grounds of the objection. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the presence of the jury.”
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.