285 So. 2d 234 - State v. Corbin’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently April 1998 · most notably 88 Ill. 2d 225 - People v. Baynes (1981), State v. Souel (1978)
40 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 State v. Square · State v. Edwards · State v. Hills · State v. Howard · State v. Richey
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In State v. Corbin, La. 285 So.2d 234 (1973), [sic] we discussed impeachment of a witness premised upon his reputation in a specific, limited group. Therein we stated: `This is not permissible. Credibility of a witness may be attacked generally, by showing that his general reputation for truth or moral character is bad. La.R.S. 15:490. The inquiry, however, must be limited to general reputation, and cannot go into particular acts, vices or courses of conduct. La.R.S. 15:491. What is called for in such cases is the opinion of the community, and not the witness. It is elementary that the individual opinion of the impeaching witness is not admissible, either as a basis for his estimate of the truth and veracity of the witness sought to be discredited, or as proof of the general reputation of the witness whose credibility is attacked. State v. Foster, 153 La. 154 , 95 So. 536 (1923). As the trial judge observed, `reputation is not established by an inquiry as to a person's standing within a certain segment or circle of the population but can be established only by reputation in the community at large.'"”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is designed to test the competency and impartiality of prospective jurors and may not serve to pry into their opinions concerning evidence to be offered at trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[T]he universal rule in American jurisdictions is that . . . the results of a lie detector test are inadmissible when offered by either party, either as substantive evidence or as relating to the credibility of a party or a witness. The essential reason is the lack of probative value and insufficient scientific reliability, as well as the possible unduly prejudicial effect upon lay triers of fact."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.