717 So. 2d 314 - Watts v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 805 So. 2d 452 - Simmons v. State (2001), Jordan v. State (2001)
32 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 753
Relies on Bordenkircher v. Hayes · McCleskey v. Kemp · United States v. Batchelder · United States v. Batchelder · Hardy v. United States
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system that a prosecutor is afforded prosecutorial discretion over what charge to bring in any criminal trial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]f no stenographic report or transcript of all or part of the evidence or proceedings is available, the appellant may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including recollection. The statement should convey a fair, accurate, and complete account of what transpired with respect to those issues that are the bases of appeal. The statement, certified by the appellant or his counsel as an accurate account of the proceedings, shall be filed with the clerk of the trial court within 60 days after filing the notice of appeal.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This Court must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the State with respect to each ,element of the offense. The credible evidence which ⅛ consistent with the verdict must be accepted as true, ... and the State has to be given the benefit of all favorable inferences which may be reasonably drawn from the evidence presented. This Court may reverse the [trial] court’s conviction only where the evidence is such that reasonable and fair-minded jurors could only find the defendant not guilty.”
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.