359 So. 2d 965 - State v. Nicholas’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably 459 So. 2d 31 - State v. Richardson (1984), 418 So. 2d 515 - State v. Smith (1982)
1 federal appellate · 49 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 356 So. 2d 1370 - State v. Martin · 338 So. 2d 662 - State v. Curtis · 356 So. 2d 1360 - State v. Hamilton · State v. Wilson · 356 So. 2d 1376 - State v. Tillman
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... This exception is historically based upon the principles of necessity and the probability of trustworthiness. 5 Wigmore on Evidence, Sections 1631, 1632 (Chadbourn Rev., 1974). The exception is founded primarily upon the presumption that an individual entrusted with a duty will do his duty and make a correct statement, 5 Wigmore, Section 1631 et seq.; McCormick, Evidence, Section 315 et seq. (2d ed.1972); Pugh, Louisiana Evidence Law, pp. 476-77 (1974). As these authorities note, the usual hearsay requirement that the declarant (here, the entrant or custodian) be shown to be unavailable, is dispensed with, largely because of the public inconvenience that would otherwise result from the disruption of public business to be occasioned by the continual summoning of public officers to prove routine facts reflected by their records with a high probability of accuracy.2"”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“the traditional `public documents' exception to the rule against hearsay.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"[11] According to this court's reasoning in Tillman and Martin, in order to be properly authenticated, a copy of a document presented in court must either be certified to by the officer who is the legal custodian of the document, or it must appear by clear evidence that the person certifying the document has been entrusted with legal custody of the original by the original custodian. Likewise, the witness introducing the document in evidence must testify from personal knowledge as to the fact of its official custody, such as testimony as to from whom or from which office he received the document. Wigmore, Section 2158(b)(b)(1)." [footnote omitted]."”
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.