Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 498 So. 2d 368 - White v. State

498 So. 2d 368 - White v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
June 2007
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2007

12 state decisions

70198619902000decided

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 437 So. 2d 19 - Box v. State · 468 So. 2d 45 - Fuselier v. State · United States v. Deutsch · Hentz v. State · 437 So. 2d 441 - Oates 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “This Court held recently in Hentz v. State, 489 So.2d 1386 , (Miss. 1986), that in criminal cases the prosecution should make available to defense attorneys all such materials in their files and allow defense attorneys to determine whether the material is useful in the defense of the case, (at 1388). All of the evidence in the record supports the contention that the prosecutor in the case at bar did indeed comply fully with this recommendation. We commend the prosecutor for his compliance and cooperation in making his files available to the defense. There is nothing in the record other than unsupported suggestions by appellant to show the existence of any records or files pertinent to the case at bar not produced by the prosecution. Appellant has failed to show any discovery violation sufficient to warrant reversal of this case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “in such a fashion for no good cause would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy which this Court, under the circumstances, will not condone.' Id.”
    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.