Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 211 Ga. App. 86 - Jordan v. State

211 Ga. App. 86 - Jordan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
November 2013
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 2013

7 state decisions

40199320002010decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2510 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2515 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986)

Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Donovan · United States v. Ojeda Rios · Felker 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. “It is a fundamental rule in Georgia that jury instructions must be read and considered as a whole in determining whether the charge contained error.”
    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.