Ex Parte Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

cited by 42 later decisions

states following

June 2017

most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably State v. Iromuanya (2006), 718 So. 2d 1166 - Ex Parte Davis (1998)

42 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 Porzig v. Nolden · Stringer v. Mississippi · Stephens v. State · 382 So. 2d 632 - Chambers v. State · 473 So. 2d 1110 - Ex Parte Jefferson

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

“[A] mistrial is a drastic remedy, to be used only sparingly and only to prevent manifest injustice.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 919 So. 2d 1223 - Banks v. State · 830 So. 2d 38 - Proctor v. City of Prattville
“"[C]urative instructions are used primarily when an objection to prejudicial testimony is sustained ; the instruction serves to eradicate the harmful effects of the inadmissible testimony. In such situations, the consistent actions of the trial court serve to totally nullify the effect of the testimony. Here, the overruling of the objection had the effect of communicating to the jury that the evidence was relevant and probative; any later inconsistent action by the trial court had at least the possibility of confusing the jury or reinforcing the inadmissible evidence in their minds."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Sheffield v. State · 655 So. 2d 1074 - Smiley v. State
“[A] mistrial is a drastic remedy, to be used only sparingly and only to prevent manifest injustice, and . . . the decision of whether to grant a motion for a mistrial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 659 So. 2d 135 - Allen v. State · 654 So. 2d 86 - Inmin v. State

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.