515 So. 2d 176 - Hill v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably State v. Davis (1988), 766 So. 2d 1010 - Murphy v. International Robotic Systems, Inc. (2000)
1 federal appellate · 31 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 Lockett v. Ohio · Eddings v. Oklahoma · Hitchcock v. Dugger · 511 So. 2d 526 - Rogers v. State · 346 So. 2d 998 - Elledge 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“cold, calculated, and premeditated manner.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“applying the evidence to the law applicable to the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The record reflects that five persons, including Hill’s mother and father, testified as character witnesses for the defense. The judge refused to permit appellant’s mother to testify that she cared for appellant’s cousins, as well as her own children. Similarly, the judge declined to allow defense counsel to question appellant’s father x-egarding his own ill health and past job l-esponsibilities. In our view, the excluded evidence focused substantially more on the witness’s character than on appellant’s. There has been no showing that the trial court abused his discretion in excluding the testimony ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.