Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 SO2D 359 - Minturn v. State

Minturn v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
March 1982
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1982

7 state decisions

40196219701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on 62 So. 2d 892 - Coco v. State · 115 So. 2d 769 - Hooper v. State · Cohen v. Harris · 74 So. 2d 797 - Williams 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We hold that it was prejudicial error to allow the witness to use the notebook to refresh his independent memory as to the questions and answers which transpired during the official interrogation of the defendant without requiring that the notebook be made available to the defense during cross-examination. Williams v. State, Fla.1954, 74 So.2d 797 ; Cohen v. Harris, 61 Fla. 137 , 54 So. 905 ; 35 Fla.Jur., Witnesses, § 180, p. 279. “To hold otherwise would allow the circumvention of the accused’s right to a full and fair cross-examination of witnesses. Where the State’s witness testifies with the help of a notebook allegedly used to refresh his independent recollection, the accused has the right to examine the notebook and thereby be in a position to impeach the witness or discredit his testimony as to matters related on direct examination. The law of this state regards this right as a fundamental right which stems from the constitutional guaranty that the accused be confronted by his accusers. Coco v. State, Fla.1953, 62 So.2d 892 .””
    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.