Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 457 SO2D 492 - Ramos v. State

Ramos v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently November 2009

5 state decisions

30198419902000decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3731

Relies on United States v. Scott · United States v. Wilson · 419 So. 2d 1194 - Thomas v. Ratiner · 409 So. 2d 510 - State v. Steinbrecher · 412 So. 2d 49 - State v. WAM

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A system permitting review of all claimed legal errors would have symmetry to recommend it and would avoid the release of some defendants who have benefited from instructions or evidentiary rulings that are unduly favorable to them. But we have rejected this position in the past, and we continue to be of the view that the policies underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause militate against permitting the Government to appeal after a verdict of acquittal. Granting the Government such broad appeal rights would allow the prosecutor to seek to persuade a second trier of fact of the defendant’s guilt after having failed with the first; it would permit him to reexamine the weaknesses in his first presentation in order to strengthen the second; and it would disserve the defendant’s legitimate interest in the finality of a verdict of acquittal. These interests, however, do not apply in the case of a postverdict ruling of law by a trial judge. Correction of an error of law at that stage would not grant the prosecutor a new trial or subject the defendant to the harassment traditionally associated with multiple prosecutions. Wilson, 420 U.S. at 352 , 95 S.Ct. at 1026 . (emphasis added).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “a ruling on a question of law when the defendant is convicted and appeals from the judgment.”
    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.