Forbes v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 744 So. 2d 413 - Provenzano v. Moore · 659 So. 2d 239 - De La Rosa v. Zequeira · 579 So. 2d 97 - Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc. v. Maler · 674 So. 2d 114 - Wilding v. State · 584 So. 2d 634 - SINGLETARY EX REL. BARNETT BANKS TRUST CO. v. Lewis
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.
“In determining whether a juror’s nondisclosure of information during voir dire warrants a new trial, courts have generally utilized a three-part test. First, the complaining party must establish that the information is relevant and material to jury service in the case. Second, that the juror concealed the information during questioning. Lastly, that the failure to disclose the information was not attributable to the complaining party’s lack of diligence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis 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.