279 So. 2d 866 - Hirsch v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently July 2008
19 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 Rodriguez v. New York · 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · Suarez v. State of Florida · 104 So. 2d 524 - Gordon v. State · 265 So. 2d 685 - Ashley 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The testimony sought to be elicited in the petitioner's trial dealt, ... with an alleged criminal act committed not by petitioner but rather by a third party ... . See Kellum v. State, 104 So.2d 99 (Fla.3d DCA 1958). The determination of the admissibility of the testimony in dispute must be resolved by a consideration of basic fundamental rules of evidence. It is interesting to note that even under the Williams rule [ Williams v. State, 110 So.2d 654 (Fla. 1959)] evidence which is relevant is inadmissible if its sole purpose is to "show the propensity of the accused to commit the instant crime charged." If the aforementioned objectionable testimony did not directly involve the petitioner and if it had no tendency to demonstrate the commission of a collateral (related) crime what purpose then could such evidence serve except to suggest a tendency, inclination, ergo propensity of the petitioner to have committed the crime for which he was charged? See Williams v. State, supra; see also Anthony v. State, 246 So.2d 600 (Fla.App. 1971).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"At common law perjury was (1) the wilful (2) giving of false testimony (3) on a material point (4) in a judicial proceeding, (5) by a person to whom a lawful oath had been administered."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ellis“that the minds of jurors must not be poisoned and prejudiced against [a defendant] by receiving evidence of another collateral crime committed by a defendant not on trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Denmark 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.