Jackson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Blue v. State (1996), Whack v. State (1995)
37 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Katz v. United States · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Mapp v. Ohio · Coolidge v. New Hampshire
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“With regard to the conflicting testimony, it is apparent that the trial court judge accepted the testimony of the two officers and rejected that of Jackson. Insofar as this involved an evaluation of credibility, this Court is not in a position to hold that the trial court judge erred in that regard. As the Court stated previously in Luton v. State, 287 So.2d 269 (Miss. 1974): It was a classic question of fact to be decided by the judge himself who had the opportunity of seeing and observing each of the witnesses who testified. The trial judge gave to each bit of the testimony such weight and worth as he deemed proper under the existing circumstances. [ 287 So.2d at 272 ]. Thus, the Court accepts the lower court's finding of fact with regard to the issue of consent. We, therefore, conclude that the consent exception to the warrant requirement permits the admission of the evidence in question.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. State“The basis for so holding is that unless and until the judgment of the trial court is reversed, the defendant stands convicted, is no longer presumed to be innocent of the crime for which he is convicted, and may be impeached by that conviction... . When a jury in circuit court returns a verdict of guilty, it is a conviction of the crime charged, and unless and until it is reversed by this Court, the conviction stands, and may be used for impeachment purposes....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When the prosecution attempts to justify a search on the basis of consent, it must demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntarily given, and not the result of duress or coercion.”
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.