Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 656 SO2D 1156 - Craft v. State

Craft v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2016

10 state decisions

70199520002010decided

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 430 So. 2d 832 - Read v. State · United States v. Campbell · 587 So. 2d 848 - Holland v. State · 567 So. 2d 237 - Johnston v. State · 542 So. 2d 914 - Hentz 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the relevancy and admissibility of evidence are largely within the discretion of the trial court and reversal may be had only where that discretion has been abused.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the prosecution did not deliberately ask or infer about whether the defendants had been involved in any other offenses.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(d) Statements Which Are Not Hearsay. A statement is not hearsay if: (1) Prior Statement by Witness. The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross examination concerning the statement, and the statement is . . . (C) one of identification of a person made after perceiving him . . . . M.R.E. 801(d)(1)(C). Culp concedes that the statement was an identification, but argues that the declarant was not subject to cross-examination because the style and phrasing of the direct examination constructively denied him the ability to cross-examine Doe. We find this claim to be without merit.”
    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.