Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 359 So. 2d 931 - State v. Boyd

359 So. 2d 931 - State v. Boyd’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
4
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 74 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably State v. Haarala (1981), 411 So. 2d 415 - State v. Vaccaro (1982)

1 federal appellate · 74 state decisions

33019781980199020002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Ventresca · Andresen v. Maryland · Barrett v. United States · 277 So. 2d 126 - State v. Prieur

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

  1. “No one can impeach his own witness, unless he have been taken by surprise by the testimony of such witness, or unless the witness show hostility toward him, and, even then, the impeachment must be limited to evidence of prior contradictory statements.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Whenever the credibility of a witness is to be impeached by proof of any statement made by him contradictory to his testimony, he must first be asked whether he has made such statement, and his attention must be called to the time, place and circumstances, and to the person to whom the alleged statement was made, in order that the witness may have an opportunity of explaining that which is prima facie contradictory. If the witness does not distinctly admit making such statement, evidence that he did make it is admissible.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Fundamental fairness is violated when a criminal defendant on trial for his liberty is denied the opportunity to have an expert of his choosing, bound by appropriate safeguards imposed by the Court, examine a piece of critical evidence whose nature is subject to varying expert opinion....”
    2 later decisions 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.