Griffin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 2004
6 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 Mullaney v. Wilbur · Hardin v. State · 2 Smith & H. 633 - Keller v. State · Harper v. State · Hembree 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ... The appellants cite Pruitt v. State, 216 Tenn. 686 , 393 S.W.2d 747 (1965); Fortune v. State, 197 Tenn. 691 , 277 S.W.2d 381 (1955)_ The record does not support the allegations in this assignment. The operator of the machine had received special training on its operation and testing. He had approximately two years’ experience in using the machine. The machine is serviced every three months. The witness testified that the machine was tested before each use to determine whether it was functioning properly. The evidence was admissible under the Fortune and Pruitt criteria. ...””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sensing
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.