Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 592 So. 2d 883 - State v. Granier

592 So. 2d 883 - State v. Granier’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently July 2016

14 state decisions

100199120002010decided

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 Batson v. Kentucky · Powers v. Ohio · Castaneda v. Partida · Strauder v. West Virginia · 277 So. 2d 126 - State v. Prieur

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

  1. “When an out-of-court statement, such as information received by a police officer during an investigation of a crime, has both an impermissible hearsay aspect and a permissible nonhearsay aspect, the issue of relevancy becomes significantly interrelated with the hearsay issue. If the nonhearsay content of the statement has little or no relevance, then the statement should generally be excluded on both relevance and hearsay grounds. Marginally relevant nonhearsay evidence should not be used as a vehicle to permit the introduction of highly relevant and highly prejudicial hearsay evidence which consists of the substance of an out-of-court assertion that was not made under oath and is not subject to cross-examination at trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “evidence is an exception to the prohibition of”
    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.