Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 3 McCanless 608 - Posley v. State

Posley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
December 1977
most recently cited

13 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Brooks v. State · Clapp v. State · Wrather v. State · Pierson v. State · People v. Newman

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

  1. ““But cross-examination must be confined to crimes (1) where a defendant, or the witness, has been convicted, and which admittedly involves moral turpitude; and (2) his character wherein he has committed offenses contrary to accepted standards of decency and morality, but which may not necessarily be subject to criminal prosecution. The State, of course, is bound by his answer in the sense that it cannot prove by way of rebuttal that he was guilty of the specific wrongs and offenses about which he had been asked.” 288 S.W.2d at 459 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ (2) But that on cross-examination of a witness, we think, specific acts, including indictments involving moral turpitude, may be asked about which disclose his conduct, antecedents, and character, and thereby tend to affect and injure his credibility, although they may reflect upon the disgrace the witness, and the answers of the witness to such collateral matters are conclusive, and not to be contradicted. * * * ” In Posley v. State, 199 Tenn. 608 , 288 S.W.2d 455 , the rule was changed simply to strike out indictments and to confine it to convictions.”
    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.