Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 884 SO2D 738 - Parks v. State

Parks v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
1
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

31 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 863 So. 2d 836 - Byrom v. State · 799 So. 2d 1 - Whitten v. Cox · 878 So. 2d 926 - Ladnier v. State · Mangum v. State · 861 So. 2d 1003 - Harris 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The Court does not single out any instruction or take instructions out of context; rather, the instructions are to be read together as a whole. A defendant is entitled to have jury instructions given which present his theory of the case. This entitlement is limited, however, in that the Court is allowed to refuse an instruction which incorrectly states the law, is covered fairly elsewhere in the instructions, or is without foundation in the evidence.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The standard of review regarding admission or exclusion of evidence is abuse of discretion. We will not reverse the trial court's evidentiary ruling unless the error adversely affects a substantial right of a party.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[w]e will not reverse the trial court's evidentiary ruling unless the error adversely affects a substantial right of a party.”
    3 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.