461 So. 2d 1380 - Austin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

cited by 29 later decisions

states following

August 2016

most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably 579 So. 2d 86 - Shere v. State (1991), Spence v. State (1991)

29 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 Hernandez v. State · Williams v. State · 419 So. 2d 1120 - Patterson v. State · Johnson v. State · Chester 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“In a system in which the search for truth is the principal goal, the severe sanction of witness exclusion for failure to timely comply with the rules of procedure should be a last resort and reserved for extreme or aggravated circumstances, particularly when the excluded testimony relates to critical issues or facts and the testimony is not cumulative.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 60 So. 3d 480 - SANCHEZ-ANDUJAR v. State · 605 So. 2d 1000 - State v. Schwartz
“In order to be regarded as adverse under this section the witness .must give testimony prejudicial to the party calling him. The fact that he simply fails to give testimony expected of him and that the testimony was not as beneficial as a prior statement is not sufficient.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 580 So. 2d 181 - McCoy v. State · 524 So. 2d 1024 - DJG v. State
“Under the circumstances of this case, it was impermissible to use the expedient of calling [the witness] as a court witness under Section 90.615 for the purpose of eliciting his prior inconsistent statement either for impeachment purposes or as substantive evidence. To conclude otherwise would permit indirectly that which may not be done directly.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 545 So. 2d 857 - Dudley 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.