Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 SO2D 193 - Rankin v. State

Rankin v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
1
states following
September 1999
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 1999 · most notably 471 So. 2d 9 - Bundy v. State (1985), 748 So. 2d 970 - Thomas v. State (1999)

33 state decisions

1201962197019801990decided

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 Roberson v. State · Mardorff v. State · 88 So. 2d 272 - Manson v. State · Hathaway v. State · Melbourne 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The question developed by this procedure is whether or not the State, upon impeaching a court witness by showing that he had formerly appeared and made a statement, which at the time of trial he says he does not recall, may go further and introduce the contents of the statement. “It is plain to us by the original ruling that the trial judge frowned upon such procedure when he restricted the introduction to the mere time and place of the statement and this thought is confirmed by his action in meticulously instructing the jury that the questions and answers repeated by the State Attorney could be considered only for the purpose of impeachment and not as substantive testimony. Yet the jury got from the reading of the questions, purportedly asked the witness at the time of the interview, and the answers presumably given and repeated at the trial a description of the horrible crime with which appellants had been charged and convicted and this procedure we cannot sanction. We think it was prejudicial error that requires a reversal of the judgment.””
    2 later decisions 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.