568 So. 2d 342 - Marcus v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently January 2011
6 state decisions
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Griffin v. Texas · 386 So. 2d 1180 - Tice v. State · 456 So. 2d 1156 - Reeves v. State · Ex Parte Tice
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]ircumstantial evidence may form the proof of the corpus delicti; if facts are presented from which a jury may draw a reasonable inference that a crime has been committed, the case must be submitted to the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex Parte JJD“no reversible error exists because additional evidence of the corpus delicti was presented subsequent”
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.