Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 703 SO2D 1143 - Hooper v. State

Hooper v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2016

8 state decisions

50199720002010decided

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 Bouie v. City of Columbia · 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · 492 So. 2d 1322 - Lavado v. State · 665 So. 2d 212 - Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (95-2) · 684 So. 2d 1347 - Hester v. Posey

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Appellant also contends that the trial court erred in not allowing him to voir dire jurors about their knowledge of news reports involving corruption in the Hollywood police department. Defense counsel alleged that members of the Hollywood police department, including the officer who took appellant's confession, had been untruthful in the investigation, and that this was therefore a proper subject of voir dire. Appellant makes no argument as to how general corruption in the police department could possibly have had any relevance in this case. The cases on which he relies, Lavado v. State, 492 So.2d 1322 (Fla.1986); Perry v. State, 675 So.2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), rev. denied, 684 So.2d 1352 (Fla.1996), were cases in which the trial courts erred in refusing to allow voir dire about broad legal concepts, not, as was the case here, an attempt to attack the credibility of a witness with information which was clearly inadmissible in evidence. What the first district said about this type of thing in Holiday v. Holbrook, 168 So.2d 752, 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964) is worth repeating: The trial judge has a duty to so direct the course of counsel's voir dire examination that the minds of the prospective jurors may not be infiltrated with ideas having no proper relation to the issue to be determined by them.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “a conscious intent that the criminal act be done.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.