Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 202 Miss. 418 - Done v. State

Done v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
March 1977
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1977

7 state decisions

401947195019601970decided

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 Barnes v. State · Weathersby v. State · Patty v. State · Houston v. State · Walters 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The Stated relied . . . upon a test made by the sheriff with his own pistol (not the appellant’s) of the same caliber and make as an experiment to determine effect of various distances as to powder burns. The test was not made under identical conditions, or even under reasonably comparable circumstances. Furthermore, the tests to which the sheriff testified were made with a towel nailed to a tree, and with a different pistol. It will be seen that they were not ‘so nearly the same’ (as the conditions of the actual shooting in the car) ‘in substantial particulars as to afford a fair comparison in respect to the particular issue to which the tests are directed.’ Brown v. State, 176 Miss. 488 , 169 So. 837, 838 . As was said in Harrison v. Southern Railway Co., 93 Miss. 40 , 46 So. 408, 410 , the experiments there were made ‘under like conditions in every respect, and we fail to see any sound reason which can support the exclusion of the testimony taken under circumstances identical, or nearly identical, with those obtaining on the day the injury was inflicted.’ That was not so here. Appellants objection to this evidence should have been sustained, and we sustain the assignment of error embodying it here. . . .””
    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.