Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

102 state decisions

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

1. “and when we consider the meaning of such provisions, we look to decisions of the federal appellate courts construing and applying the Federal Rules, especially the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the Eleventh Circuit.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. FRYE v. the STATE. · Eller v. State

2. “[T]his case was tried under our State's new Evidence Code, and the key evidence rules we must apply - OCGA §§ 24-6-615 and 24-4-403 - differ from the pertinent provisions of the old Evidence Code and instead track the analogous federal evidence rules , meaning that we will look to those federal rules and the federal case law interpreting them for guidance. Nevertheless, in their briefs to this Court, Appellant cited OCGA § 24-6-615 only in passing and failed to cite OCGA § 24-4-403 ; the State cited neither new rule; and neither party cited any case law interpreting these provisions of the new Evidence Code or the parallel provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence. It may be that the result of this case would be the same if we applied the old Evidence Code and our decisions interpreting it, but if so, that is happenstance, at least without careful comparison of the old and new law . Georgia lawyers do this Court no favors-and risk obtaining reversible evidence rulings from trial courts-when they fail to recognize that we are all living in a new evidence world and are required to analyze and apply the new law. It may be hard to comprehend that, when it comes to trials and hearings held after January 1, 2013, the most pertinent precedent to cite on an evidentiary issue may be a decades-old decision of the Eleventh Circuit (or even the old Fifth Circuit), instead of a week-old unanimous decision of this Court (if we were deciding the appeal of a case tried before 2013 and gove”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Chrysler Grp. LLC v. Walden · Beck v. State

3. “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Collins v. State · Broxton v. State