Bowden v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

cited by 50 later decisions

states following

January 2017

most recently cited

50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably 718 So. 2d 159 - Hawk v. State (1998), 608 So. 2d 784 - Fotopoulos v. State (1992)

50 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 Faretta v. California · Chambers v. Mississippi · Rock v. Arkansas · United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal · 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio

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

“It is clear that a pattern of striking black venire members need not be demonstrated before a trial court's duty to conduct an inquiry into the State's reasons for the excusal of a minority member is triggered.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 3 So. 3d 1108 - Murray v. State · Nelson v. State
“The fact that the state did not prove this aggravator to the trial court's satisfaction does not require a conclusion that there was insufficient evidence ... to allow the jury to consider the factor.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 854 So. 2d 167 - Pace v. State · 928 So. 2d 1089 - Davis v. State
“[i]f the advisory function [of the jury] were to be limited initially because the jury could only consider those mitigating and aggravating circumstances which the trial judge decided to be appropriate in a particular case, the statutory scheme would be distorted. The jury’s advice would be preconditioned by the judge’s view of what they were allowed to know.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 59 So. 3d 763 - Rimmer v. State · 834 So. 2d 836 - Barnhill 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.