Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 531 So. 2d 35 - Maul v. State

531 So. 2d 35 - Maul v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

42 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 441 So. 2d 1045 - Robinson v. State · 416 So. 2d 794 - Wood v. State · Ebens v. State · Robinson v. State · Anderson v. Marston

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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “An adverse ruling is required in order to preserve error for appellate review.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Newton v. State · 677 So. 2d 830 - Pierson v. State
  2. “matters not objected to are not preserved for review”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 710 So. 2d 521 - Bivins v. State · 600 So. 2d 1080 - Taylor v. State
  3. “remand th[e] cause to the trial court with directions to resolve the conflict and determine if a proper allocution did in fact occur. 1 If there was no allocution, the trial court is directed to conduct a new sentencing hearing in which a proper allocution is provided.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
    e.g. 587 So. 2d 1260 - Duncan v. State

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.