668 So. 2d 1094 - Lett v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
December 1996
most recently cited
17 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 598 So. 2d 1063 - Smith v. State · Coney v. State · 594 So. 2d 292 - Fenelon v. State · 644 So. 2d 1000 - Wuornos v. State · 597 So. 2d 259 - Castro v. State
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“DOES THE DECISION IN CONEY APPLY TO "PIPELINE CASES," THAT IS, THOSE OF SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS WHOSE CASES WERE PENDING ON DIRECT REVIEW OR NOT YET FINAL DURING THE TIME CONEY WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE OPINION?”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Horn v. State · Howard v. State“express limitation of Coney to prospective application precludes the application of Coney to cases pending on direct appeal or not yet final at the time of the issuance of the Coney opinion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“has a right to be physically present at the immediate site where pretrial juror challenges are exercised,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Horn 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.