Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 530 SO2D 391 - Pender v. State

Pender v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
July 2008
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently July 2008

7 state decisions

40198819902000decided

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 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · 188 So. 2d 300 - Silver v. State · Wilding v. State · 507 So. 2d 1074 - Thompson v. State · Kelly 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “applying the [ State v. ] DiGuilio [ 491 So.2d 1129, 1139 (Fla.1986)] harmless error test to the facts presented here, we cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the knowledge of the existing additional charges against appellant... did not affect the jury's verdict.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “When the court decided to sever the two charges in Pender , it erred in overruling a defense objection to utilizing the jury waiting to be sworn. Id. at 393 . We conclude, as this court did in Pender , that,”
    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.