Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 483 SO2D 1326 - Watson v. State

Watson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably McFee v. State (1987), 667 So. 2d 1242 - Ballenger v. State (1995)

39 state decisions

1401986199020002010decided

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 279 So. 2d 642 - Shelton v. Kindred · 421 So. 2d 1025 - Oates v. State · Hydrick v. State · 419 So. 2d 165 - Callahan v. State · 427 So. 2d 111 - Palmer 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[i]t is the rule of this Court that no assignment of error based on the giving of an instruction to the jury will be considered on appeal unless a specific objection was made to the instruction in the trial court stating the particular ground or grounds for such objection.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A corollary of this is that a general objection to a jury instruction does not suffice to preserve the issue for appeal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “in nature, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the photographs into evidence. The assignment of error is without merit. III. DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR A MISTRIAL AND EXCLUSION OF TAINTED IDENTIFICATION AS A RESULT OF AN IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHIC LINE-UP? At trial, Mrs. Booker made an in-court identification of Sims as the man who had raped her on January 6, 1984. Sims objected to the in-court identification solely on the basis that he was the”
    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.