Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 462 So. 2d 471 - Robinson v. State

462 So. 2d 471 - Robinson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably In Re Petition for Writ of Prohibition (1988), Grubbs v. Hannigan (1993)

3 federal appellate · 1 district · 29 state decisions

1201984199020002010decided

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 397 So. 2d 1120 - Tibbs v. State · 426 So. 2d 963 - Faison v. State · 413 So. 2d 872 - Carnavil v. Pines of Delray Ass'n · State v. Meyer · Thomas 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that the only avenue for judicial review of the weight of the evidence is by motion for new trial at the trial court level. Thus, the rules of criminal procedure and the courts continue to recognize the critical need for some form of discretionary judicial review to serve as a safety valve in those cases where the evidence is technically sufficient to prove the criminal charge but the weight of the evidence does not appear to support the jury verdict. Tibbs simply removes the appellate courts from playing any significant role in that process and places sole responsibility for that discretionary decision upon the trial judge."”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We hold that the unique situation presented in this case warrants granting the defendant a new trial in the interest of justice. We do not base this decision on the insufficient weight of the evidence or other evidentiary shortcomings; rather, we hold that deprivation of the defendant's right to any judicial review of evidentiary weight under these unique circumstances constitutes a fundamental injustice. The defendant never waived or intended to forego his right to judicial review of the weight of the evidence pursuant to a motion for new trial under rule 3.600(a)(2), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure... . We are unwilling to allow a good faith procedural error caused by the ineffectiveness of defense counsel, the state's failure to timely advise the court of its error, and the trial court's misconception of its authority under the applicable rule to override the interest of the courts in seeing that justice is ultimately done.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"secretly" confining, abducting, or imprisoning another person against that person's will.... The term "secretly" means that the abduction or confinement is intended by the defendant to isolate or insulate the intended victim from meaningful contact or communication with the public.”
    2 later decisions 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.