Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 259 La. 105 - State v. Ray

State v. Ray’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
3
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

86 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably State Ex Rel. LeBlanc v. Henderson (1972), 535 So. 2d 963 - State v. Lott (1988)

86 state decisions

41019711980199020002010decided

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 James v. United States · Norton v. Crescent City Ice Mfg. Co. · State v. Whitfield · State v. Willis · Ball v. Christie

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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “when a witness other than the defendant is impeached by the admission of a prior inconsistent statement incriminating the defendant, the statement is admissible only on the issue of credibility and not as substantive evidence of the defendant's guilt.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““This case exposes the weakness of our procedural rule that allows a defendant to avail himself of the lack of the cautionary instruction, though he remained silent and made no specific request to the trial judge for the instruction. This no-request rule creates a trap for the unwary judge to the prejudice of the fair and efficient administration of justice. “The requirement of such a request to avoid waiver and warrant appellate enforcement has ample support in the jurisprudence of other states. ... It is based upon the sound principle that the defendant should make known to the trial judge his desire for such a cautionary instruction and afford him an opportunity to give it. “Accordingly, in cases tried hereafter, we shall require a defendant to specifically request the trial judge to give such a limiting instruction in order to avail himself of its omission.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"A judgment or ruling shall not be reversed by an appellate court on any ground unless in the opinion of the court after an examination of the entire record, it appears that the error complained of has probably resulted in a miscarriage of justice, is prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused, or constitutes a substantial violation of a constitutional or statutory right."”
    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.