Finney v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 830 So. 2d 792 - Pagan v. State (2002), 751 So. 2d 537 - Goodwin v. State (1999)
1 federal appellate · 99 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 Soberon v. United States · Needler v. Valley National Bank of Arizona · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · Santoni v. United States · 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the murder was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to obtain money, property or other financial gain.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Without a proffer it is impossible for the appellate court to determine whether the trial court's ruling was erroneous and if erroneous what effect the error may have had on the result.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]lthough defense counsel objected to the shackling and requested that an inquiry be made, the trial judge refused to do so, deferring to the sheriff's apparent judgment that such restraint was necessary without inquiring into the reasons behind that decision. Further, there is no evidence in the record to support the need for such restraint. Shackling is an "inherently prejudicial practice," [citation omitted], and must not be done absent at least some showing of necessity. Because the trial judge made no inquiry into the necessity for the shackling, the defendant is entitled to a new sentencing proceeding before a jury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.