Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 708 So. 2d 1327 - Duplantis v. State

708 So. 2d 1327 - Duplantis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
1
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

76 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably 860 So. 2d 704 - Howell v. State (2003), 941 So. 2d 735 - Rubenstein v. State (2006)

76 state decisions

400199820002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Barker v. Wingo · Kotteakos v. United States · United States v. Marion · Caldwell v. Mississippi

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

  1. “... is procedurally preserved by the mere tendering of the instructions, suggesting that they are correct and asking the Court to submit them to the jury. This in and of itself affords counsel opposite fair notice of the party's position and the Court an opportunity to pass upon the matter. When the instructions are refused, there is no reason why we should thereafter require an objection to the refusal unless we are to place a value upon redundancy and nonsense.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[P]rejudice to the defendant may manifest itself in two ways. First, the defendant may suffer because of the restraints to his liberty, whether it be the loss of his physical freedom, loss of a job, loss of friends or family, damage to his reputation, or anxiety. Second, the delay may actually impair the accused's ability to defend himself.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he question of whether an individual is qualified to testify as an expert is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. This Court does not reverse such decisions absent a showing that this discretion *Page 335 has been abused, that is, that the witness was clearly not qualified.”
    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.