698 So. 2d 522 - Correll v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably 769 So. 2d 974 - Asay v. State (2000), Griffin v. State (2004)
33 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 LaSalle Bank Lake View v. United States · Jones v. State · 441 So. 2d 1083 - Livingston v. State · 371 So. 2d 482 - Hallman v. State · 523 So. 2d 562 - Correll 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`whether the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in the fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if it fails to establish a well-grounded fear on the part of the movant that he will not receive a fair hearing.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he discrepancies between the level of education, training, and experience Bunker testified to at trial and the asserted level of education, training, and experience she actually had were not so great as to make any difference in the outcome of the case. Moreover, Bunker's vita, which among other things, falsely set forth that Bunker had a high school diploma, was never seen by the jury. Thus, any misrepresentations contained in the vita are irrelevant to Correll's claim. The only alleged misrepresentation of any import was Bunker's assertion that she had worked as an assistant and technical specialist for the medical examiner's office from 1970 through 1982, when in reality she was a secretary at the medical examiner's office from 1970 to 1974, an assistant to the medical examiner from 1974 to 1981, and a technical specialist for the last five months of her employment with the medical examiner's office. In view of the fact that it is undisputed that she worked on thousands of cases while in the employ of the medical examiner, even this discrepancy becomes less serious. However, assuming for the sake of argument that Bunker's testimony did contain serious discrepancies . . . we are convinced that these discrepancies did not have any impact on the outcome of the case in light of the overwhelming evidence presented at trial in support of Correll's guilt.”
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.