Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 705 So. 2d 609 - Mobley v. State

705 So. 2d 609 - Mobley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently September 2018

6 state decisions

30199720002010decided

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 246 So. 2d 771 - Richardson v. State · State v. Schopp · 565 So. 2d 1311 - Thompson v. State · 681 So. 2d 1112 - Sims v. State · Kilpatrick 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If the reviewing court finds that there is a reasonable possibility that the discovery violation prejudiced the defense or if the record is insufficient to determine that the defense was not materially affected, the error must be considered harmful. In other words, only if the appellate court can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the defense was not procedurally prejudiced by the discovery violation can the error be considered harmless.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The State's disclosure of an eyewitness on the morning of trial can hardly be considered trivial in light of the significance of eyewitness testimony in a case ... where the defendant claims that she acted in self-defense and the case essentially boiled down to conflicting versions of what occurred.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Florida's criminal discovery rules are designed to prevent surprise by either the prosecution or the defense. Their purpose is to facilitate a truthful fact-finding process.”
    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.