967 So. 2d 155 - Cuervo v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 state decisions

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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he term “interrogation” under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the pai’t of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating l-esponse from the suspect.... A practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation. But, since the police surely cannot be held account able for the unforeseeable .results of their words or actions, the definition of interrogation can extend only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Cox v. State · 57 So. 3d 927 - Horne v. State

2. “The test is not a sufficiency-of-the-evidence, a correct result, a not clearly wrong, a substantial evidence, a more probable than not, a clear and convincing, or even an overwhelming evidence test. Harmless error is not a device for the appellate court to substitute itself for the trier-of-fact by simply weighing the evidence. The focus is on the effect of the error on the trier-of-fact. The question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict. . . . If the appellate court cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect the verdict, then the error is by definition harmful.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. V.L. v. State · 987 So. 2d 130 - Conner v. State

3. “An appellate court reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress presumes that a trial court's findings of fact are correct and reverses those findings only if they are not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Appellate review of the trial court's application of the law to the historical facts is de novo. Accordingly, "appellate courts must independently review mixed questions of law and fact that ultimately determine constitutional issues arising in the context of the ... Fifth Amendment and, by extension, article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 998 So. 2d 531 - State v. Powell · 981 So. 2d 585 - McDonnell v. State