Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 615 SO2D 957 - State v. Bourg

State v. Bourg’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
November 1999
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Pointer v. Texas · 459 So. 2d 31 - State v. Richardson · State v. Ludwig · 563 So. 2d 449 - State v. King · State v. Creel

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

  1. “"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or waste of time. In questions of relevancy, much discretion is vested in the trial court. Such rulings will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. Bourg, 615 So.2d at 961 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the intentional or criminally negligent placing of anything, or performance of any act, on any ... road, highway, [or] thoroughfare ... where it is foreseeable that human life might be endangered.”
    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.