511 So. 2d 1368 - Tolbert v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 592 So. 2d 114 - Hansen v. State (1991), 645 So. 2d 829 - Chase v. State (1994)
80 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · California v. Trombetta · United States v. Webster · 471 So. 2d 332 - Cabello v. State · Agee 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is a general rule that the intentional spoliation or destruction of evidence relevant to a case raises a presumption, or, more properly, an inference, that this evidence would have been unfavorable to the case of the spoliator. Such a presumption or inference arises, however, only where the spoliation or destruction was intentional and indicates fraud and a desire to suppress the truth, and it does not arise where the destruction was a matter of routine with no fraudulent intent.”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage“might be expected to play a significant role in the suspect's defense.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cox v. State · Johnston v. State“the exculpatory nature and value of the evidence must have been (1) apparent before the evidence was destroyed and (2) of such a nature that the defendant could not obtain comparable evidence by other reasonable means.”
7 later decisions 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.