State v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably 722 So. 2d 177 - Donaldson v. State (1998), 888 So. 2d 693 - Lopez v. State (2004)
1 district · 46 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 National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand · 440 So. 2d 350 - Tafero v. State · 485 So. 2d 1279 - The Florida Bar v. Greene · 609 So. 2d 493 - Rodriguez v. State · 666 So. 2d 140 - Kordon v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n a criminal prosecution a prior inconsistent statement standing alone is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. E.P.W. v. State · Andreu v. State“other proper corroborating evidence is admitted.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Depositions taken pursuant to rule 3.190 are specifically taken for the purpose of introducing those depositions at trial as substantive evidence. Depositions taken pursuant to rule 3.220, on the other hand, are for discovery purposes only and, for a number of reasons, assist in shortening the length of trials. How a lawyer prepares for and asks questions of a deposition witness whose testimony may be admissible at trial as substantive evidence under rule 3.190 is entirely different from how a lawyer prepares for and asks questions of a witness being deposed for discovery purposes under rule 3.220. In effect, the knowledge that a deposition witness's testimony can be used substantively at trial may have a chilling effect on a lawyer's questioning of such a witness.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Lopez · State v. Contreras
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.