Mobley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 2002
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 414 So. 2d 509 - Williams v. State · 428 So. 2d 369 - N.U., Inc. v. T & R Seafood, Inc. · 443 So. 2d 484 - Springfield v. State · Fredricks 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.
“Ex post facto application of the retention statute is not fundamental error and objection must be made at the trial level to preserve the issue for appellate review.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cofield v. State
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.