459 So. 2d 756 - State v. Buras’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 2019
6 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 345 So. 2d 874 - State v. Passman · State v. Perkins · State v. Freetime · State v. Harrison · 310 So. 2d 833 - State v. McCully
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The clear rule derived from this article is that the jury is not to take written evidence into the jury room, or receive it there, except for the sole purpose of conducting a physical examination of the document itself to determine an issue which does not require the examination of the verbal contents of the document. For example, a jury can only examine written evidence to ascertain or compare the signature, or to see or feel it with regard to its actual existence. Our courts have consistently have [sic] held that reversible error results when written evidence is given to the jury for the purpose of permitting it access to the verbal contents of the document.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“undue weight to the limited portion of the verbal testimony ... brought into the room with them.”
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.