643 So. 2d 501 - Ferrill v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

cited by 17 later decisions

states following

August 2016

most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2016

17 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 381 So. 2d 983 - Jones v. State · Scott v. Florida · 508 So. 2d 1111 - Foster v. State · 419 So. 2d 1324 - Pate v. State · 599 So. 2d 529 - Smith v. Dorsey

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

“The refusal of a timely requested and correctly phrased jury instruction on a genuine issue of material fact is proper, only if the trial courtand this Court on appealcan say, taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction, and considering all reasonable favorable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence in favor of the requesting party, that no hypothetical, reasonable jury could find the facts in accordance with the theory of the requested instruction.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 684 So. 2d 591 - Catchings v. State · 790 So. 2d 813 - Ellis v. State
“The Court instructs the jury that the testimony of a witness or witnesses may be discredited or impeached by showing that on a prior occasion they have made a statement which is now inconsistent with or contradictory to their testimony in this case. In order to have this effect, the inconsistent or contradictory prior statement must involve matter which is material to the issues in this case. The prior statement of the witness or witnesses can be considered by you only for the purpose of determining the weight or believability that you give to the testimony of the witness or witnesses that made them. You may not consider the prior statement as proving the guilt or innocence of the defendant.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Ellis v. State · Bolden v. State
“Jury Instruction A-7 The Court instructs the jury that the testimony of a witness may be discredited or impeached by showing that on a prior occasion they have made a statement which is inconsistant [sic] or contradictory statement must involve a matter which is material to the issues in this case. A prior statement of the witness or witnesses can be considered by you only for the purpose of determining the weight or believeability [sic] that you give to the testimony of the witness or witnesses that made them. You may not consider the prior statements as proving guilt or innocence of the accused.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 790 So. 2d 813 - Ellis v. State · 725 So. 2d 226 - Finley 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.