831 So. 2d 772 - Shaw v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
July 2011
most recently cited
1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Olden v. Kentucky · Breedlove v. State · 661 So. 2d 288 - Gibson 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the right to a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in order to show their bias or motive to be untruthful,” ’ ” Shaw, 831 So.2d at 774 (quoting Barows v. State, 805 So.2d 120 , 122 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.2002)). 8 . Fed.R.Evid. 403,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Childers v. Floyd“a defendant in a criminal case has considerable latitude in cross-examination to elicit testimony showing the bias of prosecution witnesses,” Shaw v. State, 831 So.2d 772 , 774 (Fla. 4th Dist.Ct.App.2002) (citing Fla. Stat. § 90.608 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Childers v. Floyd“Any party ... may attack the credibility of a witness by ... [s]howing that the witness is biased.); Shaw v. State, 831 So.2d 772, 773 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Moreover, because this case involved a”
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.