Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 253 Miss. 652 - Perkins v. State

Perkins v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
4
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2016

21 state decisions

80196519701980199020002010decided

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 Lee v. State of Mississippi · Lee v. State · Riley v. State · Albert Lee 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Ordinarily, the reopening of a case after it has been submitted to the jury and before verdict for the purpose of receiving further evidence is a matter addressed to the sound judicial discretion of the trial court. Lee v. State, 201 Miss. 423 , 29 So.2d 211 (1946)[(1947)], suggestion of error overruled in 201 Miss. 423 , 30 So.2d 74 (1947); reversed on other grounds, 332 U.S. 742 , 68 Sup. Ct. 300, 92 L.Ed. 330 ; mandate conformed to 203 Miss. 264 , 34 So.2d 736 [(1948)]. This rule imports a requirement that a cogent reason be found to exist which demands reopening in order that justice may be done. Moreover, when a case is reopened for the reception of further evidence, it must be done in such a manner that the rights of all parties will be protected and ample opportunity afforded them for cross examination or rebuttal, and even for requesting additional instructions, if the matters introduced should reasonably require them.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]t is doubtful that it (the viewing of the victim's scars) had any probative value and was of a character peculiarly calculated to inflame and prejudice the jury. Riley v. State, 248 Miss. 177 , 157 So.2d 381 (1963).”
    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.