Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 255 Ga. 215 - Curry v. State

Curry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 68 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2017 · most notably Isaacs v. State (1989), Pope v. State (1986)

2 federal appellate · 68 state decisions

3001985199020002010decided

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 Illinois v. Gates · Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Enmund v. Florida · 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Of course, even under the Gates analysis, an informant’s “veracity,” “reliability,” and “basis of knowledge,” although not independently dispositive, are not irrelevant. They are instead several of a number of relevant factors, which we must review giving “great deference” to the magistrate’s determination of probable cause, keeping in mind that “affidavits are normally drafted by non-lawyers in the midst and haste of a criminal investigation.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “While some of the questions excluded by the trial court, if minutely parsed and rigorously analyzed, arguably could have been allowed, nonetheless the questions that were allowed were more than ample to allow the discovery of bias, prejudice and prior opinion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a]bsent some abuse of discretion, which [Jones has not shown] here, participation by the trial judge in the voir dire examination of prospective jurors provides no basis for reversal.”
    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.