Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 534 So. 2d 175 - Harrison v. State

534 So. 2d 175 - Harrison v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 592 So. 2d 114 - Hansen v. State (1991), 598 So. 2d 731 - Balfour v. State (1992)

27 state decisions

1501988199020002010decided

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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Davis v. Alaska · Washington v. Texas · Mooney v. Holohan · Raphan v. United States

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

  1. “[C]ounsel may not use prior inconsistent statements as a `guise of impeachment for the primary purpose of placing before the jury substantive evidence which is not otherwise admissible.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 842 So. 2d 531 - Flowers v. State · 952 So. 2d 225 - Bailey v. State
  2. “When a'witness fails in any manner to acknowledge the making of a statement, the impeacher is obligated to offer proof establishing the making of that statement, assuming, of course, that the issue is relevant. The trier of fact must have a valid means to decide whether the witness claimed lack of recollection is anything more than a “refuge.” By being apprised of this prior statement, the trier has such a means.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Anderson v. State · 952 So. 2d 225 - Bailey v. State
  3. “... as circumstantial evidence from which the jury could infer that the trial testimony [of L.R.] was unreliable.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. 587 So. 2d 223 - Marcum v. MISSISSIPPI VALLEY GAS CO. INC. · 691 So. 2d 415 - Hall v. State

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.