179 Ga. App. 383 - Dickey v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 2000
11 state decisions
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 Wallin v. State · White v. State · 175 Ga. App. 503 - O'KELLEY v. State · 163 Ga. App. 364 - Reed 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““OCGA § 17-7-210 (Code Ann. § 27-1302) provides in pertinent part: ‘(b) If the defendant’s statement is oral or partially oral, the prosecution shall furnish, in writing, all relevant and material portions of the defendant’s statement . . . (d) If the defendant’s statement is oral, no relevant and material (incriminating or inculpatory) portion of the statement of the defendant may be used against the defendant unless it has been previously furnished to the defendant, if a timely written request for a copy of the statement has been made by the defendant.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) Van Kleeck v. State, 250 Ga. 551 (1) ( 299 SE2d 735 ). In the case sub judice, defendant argues that the trial court should not have allowed the statement because “it introduces an element of lying in ambush.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[R]etreat to a position of `harmless error' . . . would allow the State to skimp to a skeleton on the divulgence mandated by the legislature, deprive the defendant of information he is entitled to, and secure a conviction with the added evidence as insurance to persuade, however immeasurably, the factfinder. Such would render the requirement empty and meaningless in at least some cases, and we would have to divine in which cases it made a difference for the [factfinder].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.