572 So. 2d 865 - Mitchell v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

cited by 64 later decisions

states following

September 2018

most recently cited

64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably 691 So. 2d 948 - Herring v. State (1997), 708 So. 2d 1327 - Duplantis v. State (1998)

64 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 Barker v. Wingo · Ohio v. Roberts · Idaho v. Wright · 503 So. 2d 803 - Wetz v. State · United States v. McClellan

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

“Thus, the scope of review on this issue is limited in that all evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the verdict.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 866 So. 2d 1107 - Davis v. State · 878 So. 2d 130 - Stubbs v. State
“For there to be a conspiracy, "there must be recognition on the part of the conspirators that they are entering into a common plan and knowingly intend to further its common purpose." The conspiracy agreement need not be formal or express, but may be inferred from the circumstances, particularly by declarations, acts, and conduct of the alleged conspirators. Furthermore, the existence of a conspiracy, and a defendant's membership in it, may be proved entirely by circumstantial evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Franklin v. State · Newell v. State
“Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Washington v. Kelsey · 853 So. 2d 781 - Howard 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.