Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 363 SO2D 462 - State v. Muse

State v. Muse’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
April 2013
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 2013

6 state decisions

3019781980199020002010decided

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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Benton v. Maryland · 339 So. 2d 1194 - State v. Searle · 283 So. 2d 708 - State v. Womack · State v. Montoya

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

  1. “"A witness may be allowed to refresh his memory by reference to his testimony given on the preliminary examination, or at a coroner's investigation, or on a previous trial, or, for the purpose of refreshing his present memory a witness may examine memoranda, and it is immaterial by whom or when the memoranda were made, provided that, after such inspection, the witness can testify to the fact." However, appellants contend the reports were used not merely to refresh the witness' present memory, but instead used as a "past recollection recorded."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.