Farrell v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
June 2006
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · MacArthur Co. v. Johns-Manville Corp. · Thompson v. Louisiana · 576 So. 2d 281 - State v. Williams · Williams v. United States
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before admitting this type of evidence, a trial court must weigh its probative value against the danger the evidence may confuse or mislead the jury. § 90.403, Fla. Stat. More important, the testimony must not inflame the jury so as to taint its verdict. Pardo v. State, 596 So.2d 665 (Fla.1992); State v. Kopko, 596 So.2d 669 (Fla.1992). Here, although the evidence may have been relevant to prove Farrell's state of mind, this probative value was outweighed by its inflammatory nature and unfair prejudice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Matthews 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.