483 So. 2d 690 - Thompson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2011
13 state decisions
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 Faretta v. California · United States v. Wade · Neil v. Biggers · Stovall v. Denno · Manson v. Brathwaite
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification does not preclude in-court identification by an eye witness who viewed the suspect at the procedure, unless: (1) from the totality of the circumstances surrounding it, (2) the identification was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Black v. State · Nathan v. State“1. The opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime. 2. The witness's degree of attention. 3. The accuracy of the witness's prior description of the criminal. 4. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the confrontation. 5. The length of time between the crime and the confrontation.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Dennis v. State · London v. State
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.