Dudley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 532 So. 2d 50 - Brazell v. State · 592 So. 2d 292 - Cherry v. State · 153 So. 2d 854 - State v. McInnes · 447 So. 2d 1029 - Alonso v. State · 516 So. 2d 1144 - Chestnut v. State
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is incumbent upon the prosecution to show that there was a malicious threat of injury against a person, which was communicated . . . for the purpose of compelling that person to commit an act or to refrain from acting against his will.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Duan v. State · Calamia v. State“Neither the actual intent to do harm nor the ability to carry out the threat is essential to prove that extortion occurred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Duan 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.