645 So. 2d 921 - Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

cited by 27 later decisions

states following

October 2016

most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably 671 So. 2d 647 - Peterson v. State (1996), Montana v. State (2002)

27 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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Roberts v. Louisiana · Heidel v. State · 607 So. 2d 1107 - Russell v. State · United States v. Brown

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

“Jury instructions are to be read together and taken as a whole with no one instruction taken out of context. A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case; however, this entitlement is limited in that the court may refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is fairly covered elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Powell v. State · 952 So. 2d 314 - Clemons v. State
“(b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, other than conviction of crime as provided in rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 704 So. 2d 81 - Nicholson v. State · 912 So. 2d 730 - Hodges v. State
“We are not required to reverse a case based solely upon the showing of an error in evidentiary ruling. A denial of a substantial right of the defendant must have been affected by the evidentiary ruling . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 912 So. 2d 730 - Hodges v. State · 987 So. 2d 1010 - Pittman 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.