Reed v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

cited by 24 later decisions

states following

March 2017

most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 21 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Weatherford v. Bursey · 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · State v. Delva · 616 So. 2d 1 - State v. Johnson · 237 So. 2d 134 - Sanford v. Rubin

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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“`Maliciously' means wrongfully, intentionally, without legal justification or excuse.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 799 So. 2d 1084 - Adams v. State · 837 So. 2d 366 - Reed v. State
“ill will, hatred, spite, [or] an evil intent”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
e.g. 799 So. 2d 1084 - Adams v. State · 837 So. 2d 366 - Reed v. State
“It appears to me the majority is unwarranted substituting its judgment for that of the attorney for the State. Such action entails the risk of this court's being perceived in a non-neutral manner and injects it into an area well-defined and preserved for that of the advocate. I fear that in the future, attorneys will be hesitant to concede error, as here, because of the potential for embarrassment that will necessarily flow when this court points out what it concludes to be an erroneous concession from time to time. Such overruling of the professional judgment of lawyers should occur only when the procedures and jurisdiction of this court are a consideration, and when recognition of a concession effects a repudiation of an established precedent of this court. Clearly, the efficient administration of justice can best be served by approval of concessions by attorneys, except in such limited circumstances. I further feel that an attorney for a party is more likely than a panel of this court to evaluate correctly a substantive point of law as to whether or not a concession should be made in a case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
e.g. 886 So. 2d 399 - Simmons 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.