753 So. 2d 29 - Rodriguez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 174 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 176 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably United States v. Fields (2007), 837 So. 2d 940 - Doorbal v. State (2003)
2 federal appellate · 174 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · Paul v. A. Levy & J. Zentner Co. · Allen v. Oklahoma · Nebraska v. Wyoming
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 176 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As an evidentiary principle, the concept of `opening the door' allows the admission of otherwise inadmissible testimony to `qualify, explain, or limit' testimony or evidence previously admitted.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the objecting party must make a timely objection, must show that the venireperson is a member of a distinct racial [gender [2] ] group, and must request that the court ask the striking party the reasons for the strike; (2) if step (1) is met, the court must ask the proponent of the strike to explain the reason for the strike; (3) if the reason given is facially race-neutral [gender-neutral] and the court believes that given all the circumstances surrounding the strike, the explanation is not a pretext, the strike will be sustained. In step (3), the court's focus is on the genuineness and not the reasonableness of the explanation.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he relevant circumstances that the court is to consider in determining whether the explanation is pretextual include such factors as the racial makeup of the venire; prior strikes exercised against the same racial group; a strike based on a reason equally applicable to an unchallenged venireperson; or singling out the venireperson for special treatment.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.