Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 525 So. 2d 809 - Johnson v. State

525 So. 2d 809 - Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
April 2006
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 2006

19 state decisions

140198819902000decided

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 Gordon v. United States · United States v. Mahone · United States v. Preston · Peterson v. State · McInnis 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect on a party or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) The impeachment value of the prior crimes; (2) the point in time of conviction and the witness' subsequent history; (3) The similarity between the past crime and the charged crime; (4) The importance of the defendant's testimony; and (5) The centrality of the credibility issue.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “this Court can more easily ascertain whether or not the trial judge has abused his discretion in granting or denying admissibility of prior convictions for impeachment purposes,”
    2 later decisions 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.