McElveen v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably 495 So. 2d 154 - Dufour v. State (1986), 476 So. 2d 134 - Parker v. State (1985)
25 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 Blockburger v. United States · Brown v. State · 401 So. 2d 1343 - State v. Rivers · Borges v. State · 375 So. 2d 836 - State v. Pinder
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) A statement is not hearsay if the declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement and the statement is: (b) Consistent with his testimony and is offered to rebut an express or implied charge against him of improper influence, motive, or recent fabrication; .. .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he exception involving impeachment by bias or corruption or improper motive is only applicable where the prior consistent statement was made ` prior to the existence of a fact said to indicate bias, interest, corruption, or other motive to falsify.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State · JBJ v. State“The defense's proffered testimony indicated that the victim was an unchaste woman. Most of this evidence revealed that the victim had a reputation for promiscuity. Such evidence consisted of the victim's having adulterous affairs, picking up strange men at bars, and making dates with truck drivers over a C.B. radio. One witness saw the victim leave local bars with strangers. There was additional evidence relating to specific instances of sexual conduct in which one local citizen admitted having a sexual relationship with the victim a year before the alleged crime, and another testified she had seen the victim in bed with her ex-husband on two separate occasions. The trial court declined the admission of the proffered evidence, but permitted testimony revealing that co-defendant Watt, also charged with aiding and abetting the sexual battery, participated in a sexual encounter with the victim the night before the alleged crime.”
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.