Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 501 So. 2d 1376 - Garrette v. State

501 So. 2d 1376 - Garrette v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
September 2002
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 2002

18 state decisions

100198719902000decided

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 · Straight v. State · 400 So. 2d 1217 - Drake v. State · 488 So. 2d 52 - Peek 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “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.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “may not properly argue that a police officer must be believed simply because she is a police officer or that other witnesses called by the State should be believed because the prosecutor would not have called his witnesses to the stand if he could not vouch for their credibility”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “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.”
    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.