Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 473 So. 2d 795 - Bufford v. State

473 So. 2d 795 - Bufford v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently November 2009

10 state decisions

40198519902000decided

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 United States v. Powell · Dunn v. United States · Grant v. State · Steckler v. United States · Goodwin 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “); 4 Wharton's Criminal Procedure, § 575 (C. Torcia ed.1976); Annot, 18 A.L.R.3d 259 (1968). In Florida, courts have observed that an inconsistency in verdicts is the price for investing the jury with mercy dispensing powers. See Reeder v. State, 399 So.2d 445 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Damon v. State, 397 So.2d 1224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Further, the preservation of the jury”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The requirement that the jury be charged on lesser included offenses is solely based on the jury's pardon power.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Consistency in the verdict is not necessary. Each count in an indictment is regarded as if it was a separate indictment. (Citations omitted.) ... As was said in Steckler v. United States, 7 F.2d 59, 60 (C.C.A.2 1925): ‘ The most that can be said in such cases is that the verdict shows that either in the acquittal or the conviction the jury did not speak their- real conclusions, but that does not show that they were not convinced of the defendant’s guilt. We interpret the acquittal as no more than their assumption of a power which they had no right to exercise, but to which they were disposed through lenity.’”
    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.