243 So. 2d 552 - Nicholson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1994
7 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Roney v. State · Clark v. State · Riley v. State · Vance 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.
“Second, the lower court erred in refusing the appellant the right to put on surrebuttal witnesses. The rule is well settled in this state that where rebuttal evidence is introduced, surrebuttal should be allowed, particularly where to fail to do so would be prejudicial. Riley v. State, 248 Miss. 177 , 157 So.2d 381 (1963); Clark v. State, 181 Miss. 455 , 180 So. 602 (1938); and Roney v. State, 167 Miss. 827 , 150 So. 774 (1933). This was a hard fought case and is true, but melancholy, proof that, “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.” (Proverbs 20:1.)”
2 later decisions 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.