Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 279 Ga. 365 - Ross v. State

Ross v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
4
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Henderson v. State (2009), Phillips v. State (2009)

45 state decisions

220200520102020decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act)

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Old Chief v. United States · Hicks v. State · Head v. State · McCorquodale 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “set forth the limited rule that when (1) a defendant’s prior conviction is of the nature likely to inflame the passions of the jury and raise the risk of a conviction based on improper considerations, and (2) the purpose of the evidence is solely to prove the defendant’s status as a convicted felon, then it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to spurn the defendant’s offer to stipulate to his prior conviction and admit the evidence to the jury.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he need to allow the State to choose its evidence to tell a continuous story is inapplicable here because "[p]roving status without telling exactly why that status was imposed leaves no gap in the story of a defendant's subsequent [and currently relevant] criminality. . . ." Thus, in this situation, "there is no cognizable difference between the evidentiary significance of an admission and of the legitimately probative component of the official record the [State] would prefer to place in evidence."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “properly prevents a defendant from admitting certain crucial facts related to the crime, such as the cause of the victim's death, in order to prevent the admission of evidence tending to prove that fact. A defendant cannot undermine the credibility of the State's story by selectively admitting certain incriminating evidence to prevent the jury from receiving that evidence.”
    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.