Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 515 SO2D 845 - Montgomery v. State

Montgomery v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Heidel v. State (1991), 532 So. 2d 1207 - White v. State (1988)

29 state decisions

901987199020002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Holland v. United States · People v. Bennett · Commonwealth v. Sullivan · 460 So. 2d 778 - May 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “beyond a reasonable doubt and to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[a] mere fanciful or farfetched or unreasonable hypothesis of innocence is not sufficient to require an acquittal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “I ... believe that the circumstantial evidence rule and the perception upon which it is based is really much ado about nothing. It is simply redundant— repetitious, if you will — to say that an accused’s guilt must be established, (1) beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. These are two ways of saying the same thing, borne no doubt of the familiar lawyers’ penchant for never using one word when two or three will do just as well. If an accused’s guilt is established to the exclusion of every reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, then it may be said that he has been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, if the evidence has not [been] excluded from the juror’s mind a reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence, it follows that the prosecution has not established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.