Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 519 P2D 452 - Davenport v. State

Davenport v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
4
states following
April 2000
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2000

10 state decisions

601974198019902000decided

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 United States v. Byrd · Avery v. State · Hartsfield v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Co.

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

  1. “The answers of a witness given upon cross-examination on any irrelevant or collateral matter are conclusive and binding on the cross-examiner, and the witness may not be contradicted or impeached upon an immaterial or collateral matter or issue to which he testified on cross-examination. In connection with the propriety of impeaching testimony given on cross-examination, the test of whether the fact inquired into is collateral is generally the query whether the cross-examining party would be entitled to prove it as part of his case tending to establish his plea or for any purpose independently of the contradiction, by introducing evidence on the subject in chief.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[F]acts which are relevant to the issues of the case [are not collateral]. In addition, facts independently provable to impeach or disqualify the witness, whether or not introduced to contradict him, are admissi ble. For example, testimony may be introduced to show bias, interest, conviction of a crime or lack of capacity or opportunity for knowledge of the facts related.”
    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.