Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 146 SW3D 469 - State v. Robinson

State v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
5
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 41 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Batson v. Kentucky

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

  1. “While the defendant may very well be correct that both Crawford and Tennessee Rule of Evidence Rule 803(1.1) bar hearsay statements of identification if the declarant does not testify at trial, neither Crawford nor Rule 803(1.1) is dispositive in this case because the defendant himself both elicited and opened the door to the testimony he now assigns as error.”); see also State v. Lynch, 854 A.2d 1022, 1052-53 (R.I.2004) (Flanders, J„ concurring). We need not and therefore do not decide whether the statement at issue here was”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The findings of fact made by the trial court at the hearing on a motion to suppress are binding upon this court unless the evidence contained in the record preponderates against them. State v. Ross, 49 S.W.3d 833, 839 (Tenn.2001). Absent a showing by the defendant that the evidence preponderates against the judgment of the trial court, this court must defer to the ruling of the trial court. State v. Cribbs, 967 S.W.2d 773, 795 (Tenn.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 932 , 119 S.Ct. 343 , 142 L.Ed.2d 283 (1998).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Solicitation is defined as follows: Whoever, by means of oral, written or electronic communication, directly or through another, intentionally commands, requests or hires another to commit a criminal offense, or attempts to command, request or hire another to commit a criminal offense, with the intent that the criminal offense be committed, is guilty of the offense of solicitation.”
    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.