708 So. 2d 884 - Ellis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2016
8 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 Strickland v. Washington · 454 So. 2d 468 - Stringer v. State · 612 So. 2d 1080 - Nicolaou v. State · Robinson 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Court instructs the Jury that the law authorizes action on a reasonable appearance of danger, either real or apparent, and the Defendant is entitled to the benefit of appearances as presented to him and reasonably acted upon. The Court further instructs the jury that the term "apparent danger" means such overt demonstration, by conduct and acts, of a design to take life or do some great personal injury, as would make the killing reasonably apparently necessary for self-preservation or to escape great bodily harm, and that in order to establish that a homicide was committed in self-defense, it is not essential that the Defendant show that the deceased actually had a deadly weapon; it is sufficient that he show that the conduct of the deceased was such as to cause a reasonable person under similar circumstances to reasonably believe infliction of serious bodily injury or killing was necessary to prevent the deceased from then and there killing the defendant or doing him some great bodily harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The Court instructs the jury that in order to justify an Aggravated Assault on the plea of self-defense in this case, there must be something shown in the conduct of Loretta Collum, the victim, at or about the time of her assault, indicating a present intention to kill Kisha Woods or her unborn child or to do her some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such intention being ac complished. Mere fears or beliefs of Kisha Woods are insufficient. The danger to Kisha Woods from Loretta Col-lum must have been such as to lead a reasonable person under similar circumstances to reasonably believe that some infliction of serious bodily harm was necessary to prevent Loretta Collum from then and there killing Kisha Woods or doing her some great bodily harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Woods v. State“The Court instructs the jury that to make an assault justifiable on the grounds of self-defense, the danger to Kisha Woods and/or her unborn child must either be actual, present and urgent, or the defendant must have reasonable grounds to believe that Ms. Collum intended to do her and/or her unborn child some great bodily harm, and in addition to this, Ms. Woods must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is imminent danger of such act being accomplished. It is for the jury to determine the reasonableness of the grounds on which the defendant acts. If you, the jury unanimously find that Kisha Woods acted in self-defense, then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict in favor of the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Woods 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.