674 So. 2d 114 - Wilding v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably United States v. Baker (2005), Keen v. State (2000)
1 federal appellate · 28 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 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · Purcell v. Deli Man, Inc. · State v. Baird · Postell v. State · 579 So. 2d 97 - Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Placing information before the jury that a non-testifying witness gave police reliable information implicating the defendant in the very crime charged clearly could affect the verdict.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen the only purpose for admitting testimony relating accusatory information received from an informant is to show a logical sequence of events leading up to an arrest, the need for the evidence is slight and the likelihood of misuse is great. In light of the inherently prejudicial effect of an out-of-court statement that the defendant engaged in the criminal activity for which he is being tried, we agree that when the only relevance of such a statement is to show a logical sequence of events leading up to an arrest, the better practice is to allow the officer to state that he acted upon a "tip" or "information received," without going into the details of the accusatory information.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any inquiry into juror misconduct must be limited to objective demonstration of overt acts committed by or in the presence of the jury or jurors which reasonably could have affected the verdict.”
2 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.