632 So. 2d 62 - Knowles v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably State v. Singh (2002), 718 So. 2d 159 - Hawk v. State (1998)
51 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 MacArthur Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp. · Tamotsu Tanaka v. Creditors' Committee 1 · Calder v. United States · Thompson v. Louisiana · Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Ben Cooper, Inc.
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]llowing one witness to offer a personal view on the credibility of a fellow witness is an invasion of the province of the jury to determine a witness's credibility.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although not raised by the defendant, the Court feels compelled to include another statutory factor for discussion. That being that the capital felony was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. This is under Florida Statute 921.141(7)(b) [sic]. The two mental health experts established clearly that the defendant suffers from mental illness. Their diagnoses of the defendant were classic paranoid disorders which may have been affecting the defendant at the time of the killings. While it has been shown that the defendant suffers from this chronic mental illness it has not been shown that the defendant was under any particular acute distress at the time of the killings. Indeed, both experts testified that the defendant was capable of planning and executing the crimes as well as his attempts at covering up his misdeeds afterward. They both believed that the defendant could at all times distinguish between right and wrong. Nonetheless, the Court gave this some weight.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“because the jury had rejected that defense during the guilt phase even though that is how the prosecutor portrayed Morgan's actions. The State concedes that the sentencing order was defective in this regard. Among other errors, the trial judge should not have relied on the jury's verdict to reject factors in mitigation. The rejection of [a defendant's] insanity and voluntary intoxication defenses does not preclude consideration of statutory and nonstatutory mental mitigation. Moreover, we have made clear that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.