Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 FLA 717 - Dicks v. State

Dicks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1922

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
3
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 699 So. 2d 1312 - Franqui v. State (1997), Sherman v. William M. Ryan & Sons, Inc. (1940)

28 state decisions

1001922193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Pointer v. United States · Davis v. State · Hambrick v. State · Boykin v. State · Starke 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Prospective jurors are examined on their voir dire for the purpose of ascertaining if they are qualified to serve, and it is not proper to propound hypothetical questions purporting to embody testimony that is intended to be submitted, covering all or any aspects of the case, for the purpose of ascertaining from the juror how he will vote on such a state of the testimony. Such questions are improper, regardless of whether or not they correctly epitomize the testimony intended to be introduced.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “* * * * * * "The rule governing the scope of the inquiry into the qualifications of a person called for jury duty, is thus laid down in 16 R.C.L. 281: "It is a rule that the examination of persons called to act as jurors is limited to such matters as tend to disclose their qualifications in that regard, under the established provisions and rules of law; and hypothetical questions are not competent, when their evident purpose is to have the jurors indicate in advance what their decision will be under a certain state of the evidence, or upon a certain state of facts, and thus possibly commit them to certain ideas or views when the case shall be finally submitted to them for their decision." * * * * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.