Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 523 SO2D 528 - Walker v. State

Walker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
November 2009
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 2009

1 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

90198819902000decided

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 Manson v. Brathwaite · Kirby v. Illinois · Moore v. Illinois · 368 So. 2d 871 - Cumbo v. State · Skelton v. City of Birmingham

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

  1. “The evidence in this case, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, reveals that the defendant's acts and omissions were specifically directed at a particular victim and no other.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"The prerequisites to ruling that the introduction of mug shot type photographs does not result in reversible error are: (1) the prosecution must have a demonstrable need to introduce the photographs; (2) the photographs themselves must not imply that the defendant has a prior criminal record; and (3) the manner of introduction of the photographs at trial must be such that it does not draw particular attention to the source or implications of the photographs. United States v. Harrington , 490 F.2d 487 , 484 (2d Cir. 1973)."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"In a charge of a crime, 'the state may prove former acts of hostility by the accused towards the victim for the purpose of showing motive in the accused. . . . The general rule . . . is that the moving party may show the fact, but not the details of the former difficulty.' . . . 'The trial judge is vested with wide discretion in deciding how far counsel may go in eliciting "details of a former difficulty"; he should be allowed to determine when to let counsel run and when to rein him in.' "”
    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.