Whitfield v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
March 2015
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 491 So. 2d 1129 - State v. DiGuilio · Larzelere v. State · 919 So. 2d 647 - McCray v. State · 550 So. 2d 102 - Eberhardt v. State · 583 So. 2d 642 - Christopher 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he purpose of the rule is to “avoid the potential for creating misleading impressions by taking statements out of context.” The proper standard for determining the admissibility of testimony under the rule is “whether, in the interest of fairness, the remaining portions of the statements should have been contemporaneously provided to the jury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Swearingen v. State
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.