Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 270 Ark. 335 - George v. State

George v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
4
states following
June 2008
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 2008

19 state decisions

80198019902000decided

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 Rogers v. State · Brown v. State · Derrick v. Rock

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

  1. “The general rule is that prior consistent statements of a witness are not admissible to corroborate or sustain his testimony given in court. Rogers v. State, 88 Ark. 451 , 115 S.W. 156 (1908). Such statements are self serving and cumulative, and their admission would simply suggest that credibility depends upon the number of times the witness had repeated the same story rather than inherent trustworthiness of the story. 4 Wigmore on Evidence (Chadbourne Rev.) §§ 1122-1124.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Hearsay” means a statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted unless: 2. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is: (b) Consistent with his testimony and offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of recent fabrication or improper influence or motive;”
    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.