Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 708 SO2D 1099 - State v. Hubbard

State v. Hubbard’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably State v. Wooten (1999), 742 So. 2d 671 - State v. Hollins (1999)

39 state decisions

290199820002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Manson v. Brathwaite · State v. Oliveaux · State v. Weiland · 523 So. 2d 1305 - State v. Mussall

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

  1. “Emission is not necessary and any sexual penetration, vaginal or anal, however, slight is sufficient to complete the crime.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A. Aggravated oral sexual battery is an oral sexual battery committed when the intentional touching of the genitals or anus of one person and the mouth or tongue of another is deemed to be without the lawful consent of the victim because it is committed under any one or more of the following circumstances: (1) When the victim resists the act to the utmost, but whose resistance is overcome by force. (2) When the victim is prevented from resisting the act by threats of great and immediate bodily harm, accompanied by apparent power of execution.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are: (1) Rationally based on the perception of the witness; and (2) Helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.”
    2 later decisions 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.