Lundy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
April 1990
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 380 So. 2d 940 - House v. State · Ex Parte Hightower · 375 So. 2d 1063 - Gavin v. Hinrichs · 510 So. 2d 834 - State v. Robinson · 460 So. 2d 232 - Pittman 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Compliance with the due process mandate of notice does not require that the defendant be furnished the name of the bank where he co-signed the note. Thus, the inclusion of the name of the bank within the language of the indictment is surplusage. Because the identification of the bank was not a material allegation, proof of the correct name of the bank did not constitute a material variance.”
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.