829 So. 2d 93 - Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
July 2013
most recently cited
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on McClain v. State · 503 So. 2d 803 - Wetz v. State · 451 So. 2d 743 - Neal v. State · 440 So. 2d 297 - Groseclose v. State · 460 So. 2d 778 - May 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An impermissibly suggestive pretrial identification does not preclude in-court identification by an eye witness who viewed the suspect at the procedure, unless: (1) from the totality of the circumstances surrounding it, (2) the identification was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Black v. State · Shaw v. State“[w]hen there is no attempt to suppress the in-court identification by a pre-trial motion, and no contemporaneous objection is offered to the in-court identification, the issue is not preserved for appellate review except as an attack on the sufficiency of the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wilson v. State“A new trial will not be granted unless the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that an unconscionable injustice would occur by allowing the verdict to stand.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Robinson 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.