Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 272 Ark. 88 - Scott v. State

Scott v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
4
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently December 2018

21 state decisions

1001981199020002010decided

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 Pointer v. Texas · California v. Green · Dutton v. Evans · Barber v. Page · Mattox v. United States

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

  1. “Obviously admission depends upon the circumstances surrounding the hearing. In the case of a preliminary hearing admission depends on what kind of hearing is involved and whether it is a `full fledged' hearing or a limited one.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition, taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The appellants were represented by attorneys but were not obligated to cross-examine the witness. To presume that they should have done so would be to presume that they knew that the testimony could be used later in the absence of the witness. That would mean a preliminary hearing could not be one solely to learn if only probable cause existed.”
    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.