492 So. 2d 802 - Allen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 2012
6 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 Steinhorst v. State · Justus v. State · 189 So. 2d 890 - Duggan 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Officers White and Waas, both of whom testified at the trial, were present during and participated in the tape-recorded confession. Their testimony, taken as a whole, sufficiently established that the typed transcript completely and accurately reflected the incriminating statements made by Appellant a few hours after the homicide was discovered. Both claimed an independent knowledge and recollection of the events of the crime as revealed by appellant. Although the transcript did contain in several places the stenographer’s insertion of the phrase “unable to understand,” it is obvious from the testimony of the officers and the veteran sheriffs department stenographer who typed it, as well as from the context in which these insertions appear, that the accuracy of the transcript was not materially affected.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Perez v. State“Authentication or identification of evidence is required as a condition precedent to its admissibility. The requirements of this section are satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hunt v. State“The specific basis for reversal [lack of authentication] argued here not having been asserted as a legal ground for the objection to admissibility below, the point has not been preserved for appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Herrera 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.