Holloway v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2007 · most notably Tryon v. State (2007), Roleson v. State (1982)
2 federal appellate · 22 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 Holloway v. Arkansas · Dutton v. Evans · Barber v. Page · Hill v. State · Holloway 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The doctor’s testimony was, however, not critical. The State’s misconduct was, therefore, harmless error. He only testified the women had recently had sex. A rape victim’s testimony need not be corroborated. See, Spencer v. State, 255 Ark. 258 , 499 S.W.2d 856 (1973). Satterfield, supra, does not demand reversal. There, the missing witness was a suspected accomplice and his presence particularly important. We find no prejudice here. The witness had already said all he could be expected to say. The same holds true regarding the argument that the testimony from the first trial was not admissible because the witness had not been properly and fully cross-examined. Holloway’s defense was he did not rob the Leather Bottle, nor rape the women. What more could have been asked of the doctor who said the women had had sexual intercourse within six hours? Just as we believe there was no violation of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, we also believe there was no violation of the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment. That clause is not absolute. It does not require that every criminal defendant be allowed to confront every witness against him every time he is tried. . . . Neither was due process violated. [ 268 Ark. at 28-29 , 594 S.W.2d at 4 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Lackey v. State“[t]he state may argue for the maximum punishment in sensible language just as a defendant may argue for the minimum punishment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Fink v. State
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.