Swanigan v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 2019
14 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 Abdullah v. State · Williams v. State · Porter v. State · Blaylock v. Strecker · Ford 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the Blaylock opinion, we cited Norris v. State, 259 Ark. 755 , 536 S.W.2d 298 (1976), and Williams v. State, 258 Ark. 207 , 523 S.W.2d 377 (1975), for the controlling rationale regarding the rarely exercised discretion to exclude testimony for noncompliance with Rule 615. We stated that, with the offending witness subject to punishment for contempt and the adverse party free to raise the issue of credibility in argument to the jury, the party who is innocent of the rule’s violation should not ordinarily be deprived of the testimony. The standard of narrow discretion, we noted in Blaylock v. Streaker, “remains as it has been for many years.” 291 Ark. at 345 , 724 S.W.2d at 473 . We have not changed our stance in subsequent decisions, nor do we see any reason to change it now. See Porter v. State, 308 Ark. 137 , 823 S.W.2d 846 (1992); Ford v. State, 296 Ark. 8 , 753 S.W.2d 258 (1988); Daniels v. State, 293 Ark. 422 , 739 S.W.2d 135 (1987). 113There are three possible methods of enforcement of an exclusion order that are available to a trial judge: (1) citing the witness for contempt; (2) permitting comment on the witness’s noncompliance in order to reflect on his credibility; and (3) refusing to let the witness testify. Blaylock v. Strecker, supra.”
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.