Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 693 SO2D 951 - Thomas v. State

Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2021

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

601997200020102020decided

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 Doerr v. Doerr · Martin v. Delaware · Johnson v. Brown · Martin v. Delaware · 571 So. 2d 415 - Campbell 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Thomas planned the kidnapping and murder of his wife, Rachel, in order to avoid paying his part of a settlement agreement in their pending divorce. Thomas and a friend, Douglas Schraud, went to Rachel's house, September 12, 1991, the day before a substantial payment was due, and Thomas beat, bound, and gagged Rachel. When Rachel tried to escape by hopping outside, Thomas knocked her to the ground and dragged her back inside by her hair. He then put her in the trunk of her car and drove off. She was never seen again.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “To admit a defendant's confession, the state must prove the corpus delicti either by direct or circumstantial evidence. It is enough if the evidence tends to show that the crime was committed; proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not mandatory. To support a conviction, however, the corpus delicti must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “expressly evaluate in its written order each mitigating circumstance proposed by the defendant to determine whether it is supported by the evidence and whether, in the case of nonstatutory factors, it is truly of a mitigating nature.”
    1 later decision 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.