Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 183 Ga. App. 6 - Curtis v. State

183 Ga. App. 6 - Curtis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
July 2010
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2010

6 state decisions

301987199020002010decided

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 Law v. State · Gilstrap v. State · Faircloth v. State · 169 Ga. App. 254 - McDaniel v. State · Rodriguez 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is the .. . initial identification of [Phillips] as the perpetrator of the offenses, not [Rhyan’s] subsequent identification of [the] assailant as a [repairman], that is the crucial inquiry. The only pre-trial identification of [Phillips] as the . .. assailant stems from the circumstances of his arrest [and from his inculpatory statements] ... [soon] after commission of the crimes, and not from any identification procedure conducted by the State. Since there was no pre-trial identification procedure conducted by the State which led to [Phillips’] arrest and prosecution, the trial court did not err in [admitting the photographic identification and] allowing [Rhyan] to make [his] in-court identification of [Phillips]. (Emphasis in original.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"The lack of any usable fingerprint evidence would more nearly constitute an exculpatory rather than an inculpatory factor. . . . The failure of the trial court to suppress what was arguably the only evidence of a potentially exculpatory nature could not possibly have harmed appellant."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “no 'usable' fingerprints had been obtained.”
    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.