Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 593 So. 2d 802 - State v. Jones

593 So. 2d 802 - State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 2018

6 state decisions

40199220002010decided

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 438 So. 2d 1091 - State v. Johnson · State v. Duplessis · 437 So. 2d 280 - State v. Joseph · State v. Ellwest Stereo Theatres, Inc. · State v. Gilmore

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.

  1. “A trial judge has the responsibility to exercise control over the nature of the questions posed by counsel to ensure fairness and judicial economy. An unavoidable risk of this duty is that in the heat of a trial, adverse rulings may incorrectly appear to reflect the judge's opinion of a party, witness or theory of the case. Experienced trial lawyers aware of this risk weigh seriously these concerns in phrasing questions to a witness. Thus, the risk exerts a moderating influence on the excesses of advocacy.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The judge in the presence of the jury shall not comment upon the facts of the case, either by commenting upon or recapitulating the evidence, repeating the testimony of any witness, or giving an opinion as to what has been proved, not proved, or refuted.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The challenged remark of the trial judge, whether inappropriate or not, does not rise to the level of a prejudicial error which requires reversal. Standing alone, the remark does not evidence the judge's abandonment of neutrality which is required to constitute prejudicial error.”
    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.