Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 SO3D 1099 - Hicks v. State

Hicks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
January 2010
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 749 So. 2d 110 - Floyd v. City of Crystal Springs · 921 So. 2d 292 - Spicer v. State · Forrest v. State · 799 So. 2d 53 - Gray v. State · 224 So. 2d 216 - Catholic Diocese of Natchez-Jackson v. Jaquith

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

  1. “To warrant reversal, two elements must be shown: error, and injury to the party appealing. Error is harmless when it is trivial, formal, or merely academic, and not prejudicial to the substantial rights of the party assigning it, and where it in no way affects the final outcome of the case; it is prejudicial, and ground[s] for reversal, only when it affects the final result of the case and works adversely to a substantial right of the party assigning it. Obviously, in order for the rule of harmless error to be called into play in support of a judgment, the judgment must be otherwise supportable, and will be reversed when there is nothing in the pleadings or evidence to support it.”
    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.