Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 937 So. 2d 590 - Taylor v. State

937 So. 2d 590 - Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Ring v. Arizona · Caldwell v. Mississippi · Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. · 334 So. 2d 13 - Shaw v. Shaw · 322 So. 2d 908 - Tedder 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"[A] trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress comes to us clothed with a presumption of correctness and, as the reviewing court, we must interpret the evidence and reasonable inferences and deductions derived therefrom in a manner most favorable to sustaining the trial court's ruling." Connor v. State, 803 So.2d 598, 605 (Fla.2001) (quoting Murray v. State, 692 So.2d 157, 159 (Fla. 1997)). Nevertheless, "mixed questions of law and fact that ultimately determine constitutional rights should be reviewed by appellate courts using a two-step approach, deferring to the trial court on questions of historical fact but conducting a de novo review of the constitutional issue." Id. . . . . This Court "recognize[s] and honor[s] the trial court's superior vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses and in making findings of fact. The deference that appellate courts afford findings of fact based on competent, substantial evidence is an important principle of appellate review. In many instances, the trial court is in a superior position `to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, demeanor, and credibility of the witnesses.'" Stephens v. State, 748 So.2d 1028, 1034 (Fla.1999) (quoting Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976)).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) the murder was committed while Taylor was on felony probation; (2) Taylor had previously been convicted of a felony involving a threat of violence to the person; and (3) the murder was committed for pecuniary gain.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “impermissibly shift the burden to the defense to prove that death is not the appropriate sentence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.