Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 483 So. 2d 684 - Holmes v. State

483 So. 2d 684 - Holmes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
2
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 2017

16 state decisions

801986199020002010decided

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 Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. v. Blankenship · 440 So. 2d 297 - Groseclose v. State · 361 So. 2d 1360 - Irving v. State · 373 So. 2d 1042 - Gandy v. State · 449 So. 2d 756 - Wiley v. State

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

  1. “[W]e know of no rule of law or standard of evidence which requires that identification testimony be viewed with caution and that juries be instructed to that effect. Our cases on the point expressly hold that such an instruction should not be given. Hines v. State, 339 So.2d 56, 58 (Miss. 1976); Clubb v. State, 350 So.2d 693, 697 (Miss. 1977); Ragan v. State, 318 So.2d 879, 882 (Miss. 1975) (emphasis in original).”
    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.