Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 462 So. 2d 1075 - Mills v. State

462 So. 2d 1075 - Mills v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2012
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2012 · most notably 524 So. 2d 403 - Torres-Arboledo v. State (1988), Mills v. Singletary (1995)

4 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

2201985199020002010decided

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 Blanton v. General Electric Credit Corp. · Jones v. Howard · Tamotsu Tanaka v. Creditors' Committee 1 · Tison v. Arizona · United States v. Security Industrial Bank

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

  1. “The competency of a juror challenged for cause presents a mixed question of law and fact to be determined by the trial court. Manifest error must be shown to overturn the trial court's finding.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The test for determining juror competency is whether the juror can lay aside any bias or prejudice and render a verdict solely on the evidence presented and the instructions on the law given by the court.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The prospective juror's distant relationship to the victim's family and his acquaintance with [the defendant] and his family did not negate his declarations of impartiality [and therefore excusal for cause was not required].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.