Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 649 SO2D 1350 - State v. Rawls

State v. Rawls’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 934 So. 2d 1248 - McLean v. State (2006), Saffor v. State (1995)

36 state decisions

180199420002010decided

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 Rodriguez v. New York · 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · 591 So. 2d 178 - Florida Bar re Corbin · 513 So. 2d 122 - State v. Fundora · 529 So. 2d 690 - Florida Bar v. Takiff

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

  1. “[T]he determination of whether a familial relationship exists must be done on a case-by-case basis. Consanguinity and affinity are strong indicia of a familial relationship but are not necessary. Also, the defendant and the victim need not reside in the same home. The relationship must be one in which there is a recognizable bond of trust with the defendant, similar to the bond that develops between a child and her grandfather, uncle, or guardian.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[a] legitimate custodial relationship would be the equivalent of a familial relationship for purposes of permitting the introduction of similar fact evidence to corroborate the victim's testimony of sexual battery under Heuring”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “share[d] the unique combination of characteristics required to meet the strict standards of the Williams rule.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.