613 So. 2d 1301 - Files v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably 965 So. 2d 1 - Hoskins v. State (2007), 699 So. 2d 1332 - Franqui v. State (1997)
35 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Hernandez v. New York · American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance v. United States · 382 So. 2d 1197 - Canakaris v. Canakaris
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[appellate courts] must rely on the superior vantage point of the trial judge, who is present, can consider the demeanor of those involved, and can get a feel for what is going on in the jury selection process. It is difficult, if not impossible, to establish a strict rule of law in this sensitive area and still "achieve the delicate balance between eliminating racial prejudice and the right to exercise peremptory challenges." Reed [v. State, 560 So.2d 203, 206 (Fla. 1990)]. The responsibility to apply these principles properly and eliminate racial prejudice in our jury selection process rests largely on our trial judges.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Ratliff v. State · Cobb v. State“achieve the delicate balance between eliminating racial prejudice and the right to exercise peremptory challenges.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The five factors set forth in Slappy were not intended to be absolute. We qualified those factors by stating that they "will tend to show that the state's reasons are not actually supported by the record or are an impermissible pretext." These factors were intended to be taken into account with other factors to determine whether a non-neutral or pretextual reason had been given. (citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.