Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 465 SO2D 294 - Pharr v. State

Pharr v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Stringer v. State (1986), 551 So. 2d 165 - Davis v. State (1989)

57 state decisions

2101984199020002010decided

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 Blockburger v. United States · Brown v. Ohio · Missouri v. Hunter · Ohio v. Johnson · 451 So. 2d 743 - Neal 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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A greater quantum of evidence favoring the State is necessary for the State to withstand a motion for a new trial, as distinguished from a motion for J.N.O.V.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “However, the evidence should be weighed in the light most favorable to the verdict. A reversal on the grounds that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, unlike a reversal based on insufficient evidence, does not mean that acquittal was the only proper verdict. Rather, as the “thirteenth juror,” the court simply disagrees with the jury’s resolution of the conflicting testimony. This difference of opinion does not signify acquittal any more than a disagreement among the jurors themselves. Instead, the proper remedy is to grant a new trial.”
    7 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.