446 So. 2d 1172 - Pulliam v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently February 2012
4 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 424 So. 2d 758 - Hicks v. State · Sias v. State · 104 So. 2d 99 - Kellum v. State · Johnson v. State · 356 So. 2d 1327 - Buckhann 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in the area, which may well have left the jury with a highly prejudicial implication that the defendant was in some way involved in the collateral investigation, was reversible error. Id. at 1173-74 . Here, the record compels the conclusion that the prosecutor intended to create the impression in the mind of the jury that Ramos was caught up in an ongoing narcotics investigation and was a kingpin supplier of narcotics. Next, Ramos also claims prosecutorial misconduct as a result of the prosecutor's statement to the jury:”
1 later decision 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.