Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 657 So. 2d 1146 - Angrand v. Key

657 So. 2d 1146 - Angrand v. Key’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

1 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably McMullen v. State (1998), 712 So. 2d 389 - Time Ins. Co., Inc. v. Burger (1998)

1 district · 24 state decisions

1101995200020102020decided

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 Johnson v. Florida · 596 So. 2d 665 - Pardo v. State · 488 So. 2d 826 - Florida Bar v. Baxter · 589 So. 2d 287 - State v. Cabrera · 508 So. 2d 11 - Agan v. Duggar

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

  1. “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify about it in the form of an opinion; however, the opinion is admissible only if it can be applied to evidence at trial.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Clearly, psychiatrists, psychologists, or other qualified physicians who have treated a survivor or reviewed records concerning a survivor's treatment for physical or mental sequelae related to mental pain and suffering caused by the death of a survivor's decedent may provide testimony which will assist the jury in understanding evidence and deciding damages issues. Further, we recognize that the experience, age, and other relevant information about the jurors or the facts in a particular case could provide a basis for the trial judge to conclude that Dr. Platt or a person with similar expertise, training, and education would assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in deciding the appropriate damages. These are factors to be considered by the trial judge in the exercise of his or her discretion."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]e recognize that the experience, age, and other relevant information about the jurors or the facts in a particular case could provide a basis for the trial judge to conclude that [an expert] or person with similar expertise, training and education would assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in deciding the appropriate damages. * * * The trial court should exercise its discretion so that only expert testimony which will assist the trier of fact is admitted. An expert's testimony should not be admitted merely to relay matters which are within the common experience of the jurors or to summarize what the expert has been told by lay witnesses.”
    2 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.