704 So. 2d 107 - Gordon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably 900 So. 2d 495 - Fitzpatrick v. State (2005), 787 So. 2d 747 - Stephens v. State (2001)
1 federal appellate · 34 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 Taylor v. Louisiana · Duren v. Missouri · 118 S. Ct. 335 - Gens v. Federal Deposit Insurance · 615 So. 2d 688 - Spencer v. State · 293 So. 2d 44 - Lynch 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.
“[T]he jury must first determine that the killing was the product of cool and calm reflection and not an act prompted by emotional frenzy, panic, or a fit of rage (cold); and that the defendant had a careful plan or prearranged design to commit murder before the fatal incident (calculated); and that the defendant exhibited heightened premeditation (premeditated); and that the defendant had no pretense of moral or legal justification.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Woods v. State · Cave v. State“[Cjourts should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the opposite party can be sustained under the law. [Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44, 45 (Fla.1974) ]; see Gudinas v. State, 693 So.2d 953 (Fla.1997), cert. denied, [— U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 345 , 139 L.Ed.2d 267 ] 66 U.S.L.W. 3297 (U.S. Oct. 20 1997); Barwick v. State, 660 So.2d 685 (Fla.1995); DeAngelo v. State, 616 So.2d 440 (Fla.1993); Taylor v. State, 583 So.2d 323 (Fla.1991). In circumstantial evidence cases, “a judgment of acquittal is appropriate if the State fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt.” Barwick, 660 So.2d at 694 . Therefore, at the outset, “the trial judge must first determine there is competent evidence from which the jury could infer guilt to the exclusion of all other inferences.” Barwick, 660 So.2d at 694 . After the judge determines, as a matter of law, whether such competent evidence exists, the “question of whether the evidence is [in fact] inconsistent with any other reasonable inference is a question of fact for the jury.” Long v. State, 689 So.2d 1055, 1058 (Fla.1997).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Woods v. State · Williams v. State“We have repeatedly reaffirmed the general rule established in Lynch v. State, 293 So.2d 44 (Fla.1974), that: [C]ourts should not grant a motion for judgment of acquittal unless the evidence is such that no view which the jury may lawfully take of it favorable to the opposite party can be sustained under the law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Woods v. State · Morrison 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.