Eubanks v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2013
24 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 Johnson v. United States · 71 Cal. 2d 761 - People v. Schader · State v. Santiago · Love v. State · Gafford 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]ven when such evidence is relevant, the probative value must outweigh its prejudicial impact.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]o introduce a possible drug association without more in order to indicate that the defendant must be a thief requires precisely the type of leap of faith the evidence rules have been designed to prevent. Because the prejudicial content of the evidence of possible prior misconduct far outweighs its minimal probative value, the evidence is inadmissible for the purpose of proving motive or intent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Mossberg v. State · Gould v. State“Prior Inconsistent Statements. A witness may be impeached by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his present testimony. The statements must first be related to him, with the circumstances of times, places, and persons present, and the witness shall be asked whether he had made such statements and, if so, shall be allowed to explain them. If the statements are in writing, they shall be shown to the witness before he is asked any question concerning them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Priest v. Lindig
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.