595 So. 2d 132 - Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2013
9 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 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · Watson v. Louisiana · 452 So. 2d 520 - Blanco v. State · 62 So. 2d 892 - Coco v. State · 361 So. 2d 148 - Coxwell v. State
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... Because Ratcliff’s testimony as to his observations of the appellant’s actions was crucial evidence establishing probable cause for the appellant’s arrest, the reliability of his observations was of critical importance. * * * Because the testimony was relevant, Ratcliff should have been required to reveal the location from which he made his observation, unless such testimony was barred by some privilege, constitutional right, statute or rule. [Citations omitted]. The only reasons given for barring the testimony were (1) preserving the secrecy of the observation point for purposes of other investigations, and (2) protecting Ratcliffs safety, should he use the same observation point in the future. These reasons are not recognized by any privilege, constitutional right, statute or rule. Accordingly, the evidence was not exempt from disclosure.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he testimony which the appellant tried to elicit related directly to the transaction, event, and subject which the witness had testified to on direct examination by the prosecutor[,] ... in addition to [his] right to offer the evidence under the evidence code, the appellant also had a constitutional right to conduct the examination and receive answers to [his] questions.”
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.