839 So. 2d 821 - Durrant v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
May 2012
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 559 So. 2d 187 - State v. Law · 293 So. 2d 44 - Lynch v. State · Steinhorst v. State · 751 So. 2d 537 - Goodwin v. State · 753 So. 2d 29 - Rodriguez 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.
“[W]hen defense counsel objected to the comment, the court sustained the objection and gave a curative instruction to the jury to disregard the comment. The court then denied defense counsel’s subsequent motion for mistrial. Our standard for review of the denial of the motion for mistrial is whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Goodwin v. State, 751 So.2d 537, 546 (Fla.1999) (citations and footnote omitted). Thus, we must “determine whether the single improper remark, to which the trial court sustained an objection and gave a curative instruction, was so prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair trial.” Id. at 547 (citation omitted).”
2 later decisions 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.