488 So. 2d 52 - Peek v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

cited by 60 later decisions

states following

February 2018

most recently cited

59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 863 So. 2d 271 - Johnston v. State (2003), 702 So. 2d 186 - Chandler v. State (1997)

59 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 Rodriguez v. New York · 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · Griffin v. Texas · LeDuc v. Florida · Green 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“[a] mere general similarity will not render the similar facts legally relevant to show identity. There must be identifiable points of similarity which pervade the compared factual situations. Given sufficient similarity, in order for the similar facts to be relevant, the points of similarity must have some special character or be so unusual as to point to the defendant.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Chambers v. State · 501 So. 2d 1376 - Garrette v. State
“[t]he admission of improper collateral crime evidence is `presumed harmful error because of the danger that a jury will take the bad character or propensity to crime thus demonstrated as evidence of guilt of the crime charged,'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 501 So. 2d 1376 - Garrette v. State · 547 So. 2d 111 - Castro v. State
“Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 501 So. 2d 1376 - Garrette v. State · Beaussicot 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.