Bleich v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 753 So. 2d 29 - Rodriguez v. State · 689 So. 2d 259 - Morton v. State · 843 So. 2d 962 - State v. Richards · Senterfitt v. State · Bartholomew 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f a party knowingly calls a witness for the primary purpose of introducing a prior statement which otherwise would be inadmissible,' impeachment should ordinarily be excluded. On the other hand, a party may always impeach its witness if the witness gives affirmatively harmful testimony. In a case where a witness gives both favorable and unfavorable testimony,' the party calling the witness, should usually be permitted to impeach the witness with a prior inconsistent statement. ... In addressing these issues, trial judges must have broad discretion in determining whether the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) whether the witness's testimony affirmatively harmed the calling party, and (2) whether the impeachment of the witness -4- was of de minimis substantive value.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“whether the witness's testimony surprised the calling party.”
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.