720 So. 2d 856 - Walters v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

cited by 36 later decisions

states following

July 2013

most recently cited

36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably 790 So. 2d 179 - Milano v. State (2001), 877 So. 2d 1254 - Lynch v. State (2004)

36 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 · Batson v. Kentucky · 503 So. 2d 803 - Wetz v. State · 454 So. 2d 468 - Stringer v. State · 460 So. 2d 778 - May 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“The discretion of the trial judge runs toward almost unlimited admissibility regardless of the gruesomeness, repetitiveness, and the extenuation of probative value.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. Theodore v. State · Wilson v. State
“[A] trial judge's factual findings relative to a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges on minority persons... will not be reversed unless they appear clearly erroneous or against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 759 So. 2d 368 - Humphrey v. State · 732 So. 2d 172 - Fleming v. State
“[He] is a member of a cognizable racial group, and that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant's race. Second, the defendant is entitled to rely on the fact, as to which there can be no dispute, that peremptory challenges constitute a jury selection practice which permits "those to discriminate who are of a mind to discriminate." Finally, the defendant must show that the facts and other relevant circumstances raise an inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 759 So. 2d 368 - Humphrey v. State · 760 So. 2d 743 - Gary 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.