911 So. 2d 644 - Amos v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
September 2014
most recently cited
1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Barker v. Wingo · 895 So. 2d 836 - Bush v. State · McFee 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.
“an error in the admission or exclusion of evidence is not grounds for reversal unless the error affected a substantial right of a party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McDowell v. State“Amos was not harmed by the exclusion of the hearsay statement because its content was wholly cumulative of other testimony. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McDowell v. State“this Court's review is strictly limited to the appellate record”
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.