Tucker v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
July 2008
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 462 So. 2d 1105 - Dumas v. State · 418 So. 2d 1277 - Chang v. State · 439 So. 2d 246 - Dumas v. State · 408 So. 2d 635 - Enrique v. State · 539 So. 2d 601 - Smith 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a defendant, represented by counsel, [can] orally waive a jury trial, if a full explanation of the consequences is given by the trial judge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“inform[ing] him that he ha[d] a right to participate in jury selection,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Zinnerman v. State“[rule] 3.260 contains no such requirement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Zinnerman 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.