738 So. 2d 1020 - Grant v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
October 2006
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 246 So. 2d 771 - Richardson v. State · State v. Schopp · 709 So. 2d 87 - Norton v. State · 565 So. 2d 1311 - Thompson v. State · 736 So. 2d 27 - Davis 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The defense did not identify a change in the area in the year after the crime which would have made the photographs so misleading that their admission would justify reversal. Jurors are not potted plants. They are capable of appreciating the photographs for their geographical value, while comprehending the significance of photos taken during the day when called on to evaluate the events that occurred at night. The defense was fully capable of exploring any deficiencies in the photographs on cross examination of the detectives.”
3 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.