Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 608 So. 2d 1058 - State v. Ford

608 So. 2d 1058 - State v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2014

13 state decisions

60199220002010decided

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 Blockburger v. United States · Grady v. Corbin · State v. Sepulvado · 459 So. 2d 31 - State v. Richardson · 572 So. 2d 1166 - State v. Greer

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. “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The twelve jurors in this case were presented with myriad reasons all perfectly understandable by laymen why they should not credit the identifications made by Lionel Burr. The trial court could have reasonably decided, under La. C.E. art. 403, that any benefit from the proffered testimony would have been outweighed by its creation of confusion and/or undue prejudice. Considering Stucke and Gurley , we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow the testimony.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or waste of time.”
    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.