Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 734 SO2D 193 - Wansley v. State

Wansley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
November 2006
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 667 So. 2d 1242 - Ballenger v. State · Conner v. State · 651 So. 2d 1068 - Ellis v. Ellis · Burke 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “nor is a court required to suggest instructions in addition to those which the parties tender.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Although D-22 is found in the court papers it is not marked in any fashion as being refused, given or withdrawn. There is no mention of D-22 in the transcript. Counsel did not draw it to the attention of the trial court during the discussion of jury instructions nor in Ballenger's motion for new trial. It is the appellant's duty to make sure a claimed error is properly preserved on record. This failure to make a sufficient record concerning instruction D-22 precludes Ballenger from complaining now that the instruction was not given.”
    1 later decision 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.