451 So. 2d 458 - Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

cited by 55 later decisions

states following

March 2017

most recently cited

55 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably 559 So. 2d 1321 - State v. Wille (1990), 547 So. 2d 1201 - Rhodes v. State (1989)

55 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 Rodriguez v. New York · 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · American States Insurance v. Piasecki · 365 So. 2d 701 - Castor v. State · Green 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“"There is no doubt that this admission [to prior unrelated crimes] would go far to convince [persons] of ordinary intelligence that the defendant was probably guilty of the crime charged. But, the criminal law departs from the standard of the ordinary in that it requires proof of a particular crime. Where evidence has no relevancy except as to the character and propensity of the defendant to commit the crime charged, it must be excluded." Jackson v. State, 451 So.2d 458, 461 (Fla. 1984) (quoting with approval Paul v. State, 340 So.2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)).”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Delgado v. State · Smith v. State
“The first issue urged in the guilt phase concerns testimony from Sylvester Dumas, a state witness. During direct examination by the state, Dumas testified about an occasion when Jackson had pointed a gun at him and boasted of being a "thoroughbred killer" from Detroit. Jackson's defense counsel interrupted the testimony to object to the line of questioning on relevancy grounds, and was overruled. Jackson argues that the testimony had no valid probative value and only tended to show bad character or propensity, and therefore is inadmissible. § 90.404(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (1979); Drake v. State, 400 So.2d 1217 (Fla.1981); Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 847 , 80 S.Ct. 102 , 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Delgado v. State · Smith v. State
“as substantive evidence through the mouth of another witness”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 547 So. 2d 281 - Smith v. State · 530 So. 2d 413 - Everett 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.