738 So. 2d 382 - Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 2018
19 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 94 So. 2d 829 - Mariani v. Schleman · 456 So. 2d 916 - Jackson v. State · 438 So. 2d 374 - Mason v. State · 350 So. 2d 520 - Tabasky v. Dreyfuss · Danson 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"To the extent the individual making the record does not have personal knowledge of the information contained therein, the second prong of the predicate requires the information to have been supplied by an individual who does have personal knowledge of the information and who was acting in the course of a regularly conducted business activity. If this predicate is not satisfied, then the information contained in the record is inadmissible hearsay, unless it falls within another exception to the hearsay rule." [c.o.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“an error involving a ruling admitting evidence requires a timely objection which states the specific ground of objection if the `specific ground was not apparent from the context.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Carter v. State · Filan v. State“objection `lack of foundation,' like its first cousin `improper predicate,' is not a `specific ground of objection' within the meaning of section 90.104(1)(a).”
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.