827 So. 2d 201 - Vining v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

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

1. “Because the alleged individual errors are without merit, the contention of cumulative error is similarly without merit.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 975 So. 2d 1035 - Evans v. State · 983 So. 2d 418 - Kormondy v. State

2. “[W]hile the sentencing order did state that the judge read all of the depositions, read the medical examiner’s report, and checked the victim’s probate records, all of which constitute extra-record materials, the trial judge revealed his consideration of these mat ters both in letters to the parties and during a motion hearing prior to the penalty phase. Thus, unlike both Gardner and Porter , Vining was advised by the trial judge of his consideration of extra-record information and afforded an opportunity to rebut or impeach the information. Further, like Consalvo, the information relied upon in the sentencing order to support the aggravating factors was otherwise proven at trial. And like Lockhart, “given the overwhelming evidence supporting [the] aggravating factors, this error did not injuriously affect [the defendant’s] substantial rights.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mickel v. State · Krawczuk v. State

3. “Although Vining now contends that there are many public records outstanding, he made no further complaint on the public records issue during the five-month span between the postconviction court's public records order and the evidentiary hearing. Based on this record, we conclude that the court afforded Vining ample time and opportunity to pursue any public records claim. Through his own actions, Vining either waived or abandoned any claim that he was denied public records.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mungin v. State · 854 So. 2d 167 - Pace v. State