340 So. 2d 727 - Duke v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2019
18 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 Stokes v. State · Lee v. Lee · 287 So. 2d 759 - Herron v. State · Ford v. State · Cunningham 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court properly admonished the jury. We have held in many cases that when an objection to testimony is sustained and the jury is admonished to disregard it there is no reversible error. Herron v. State, 287 So.2d 759 (Miss. 1974). In Holifield v. State, 275 So.2d 851 (Miss. 1973) we held that when the court sustains an objection to improper testimony or improper remarks of counsel participating in the trial, it is presumed, unless otherwise shown, that the jury followed the directions of the trial judge to disregard such comment or testimony. We hold that no error was committed by the court in refusing the mistrial because he properly admonished the jury. . . . ( 340 So.2d at 731 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[o]ne of the leading cases in the United States on attempt to commit a crime”
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.