Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 186 Ga. App. 599 - Adams v. State

186 Ga. App. 599 - Adams v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
states following
October 2008
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 2008

22 state decisions

130198819902000decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Batson v. Kentucky · Stevens v. State · Aldridge v. State · Mincey 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “There is no requirement that the testimony of the victim of child molestation be corroborated. See Padgett v. State, 175 Ga. App. 818 ( 334 SE2d 883 ) (1985). Nevertheless, the testimony of the victim in this case was corroborated in several material respects. From all of the evidence, the jury was authorized to find that [Coalson] had committed an immoral or indecent act to the person of the child. See generally Chapman v. State, 170 Ga. App. 779 (1) ( 318 SE2d 213 ) (1984). The evidence would also clearly authorize a finding that [Coalson] had done so with the intent to arouse his sexual desires. See generally Bentley v. State, 179 Ga. App. 287 (1) ( 346 SE2d 98 ) (1986).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]here is no requirement that the testimony of the victim of child molestation be corroborated,”
    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.