Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 565 So. 2d 328 - Erickson v. State

565 So. 2d 328 - Erickson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
2
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Griffin v. State (1994), State v. Nelson (1998)

37 state decisions

240199020002010decided

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 Estelle v. Smith · Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · David W. McKay v. Texas · National Labor Relations Board v. Plasterers' Local Union No. 79

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

  1. “[W]hen a discrepancy concerning the scoresheet is brought to the sentencing court's attention, the court should resolve the discrepancy and correct the scoresheet to reflect the accurate numbers.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The committee notes to Florida Rule of Crim.Pro. 3.701(d)(1) place on the sentencing court the ultimate responsibility of assuring that scoresheets are accurately prepared. In order to reach a fully informed sentencing decision, the trial court must have the benefit of an accurately prepared seoresheet. This requirement applies even if the trial court expresses an intention to impose the maximum statutory sentence at the sentencing hearing. The rationale for the rule is that the trial court might have imposed a different sentence had it the benefit of a corrected seoresheet. Thus, when a discrepancy concerning the score-sheet is brought to the sentencing court’s attention, the court should resolve the discrepancy and correct the seoresheet to reflect the accurate numbers, (citations omitted).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It is well settled that even incorrectly admitted evidence is deemed harmless and may not be grounds for reversal when it is essentially the same as or merely corroborative of other properly considered testimony at trial.”
    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.