Bell v. Harrison’s Empirical Analysis
670 F.2d 656 · 1982
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2012
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 Shockley 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“T.C.A. § 40-2445 (Supp.1981) provides: Specific instances of prior consensual sexual activity between the victim and any person other than the offender shall not be admitted into evidence in prosecutions under §§ 39-707 and 39-3701-39-3706 provided, however, that when consent by the victim is at issue such evidence may be admitted if it is first established by the court outside the presence of the jury and spectators by the method of clearing the courtroom that such activity shows such a relation to the conduct involved in the case on the part of the victim that is relevant to the issue of consent, (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Marquadis“[Ejvidence of a rape victim’s prior sexual activity is of dubious probative value and relevance and is highly embarrassing and prejudicial. Often such evidence has been used to harass the prosecuting victim. Sponsors of [rape shield] statutes assert that they encourage victims of sexual assault to report the crimes without fear of having their past sexual history exposed to the public.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. LaPointe v. State“While the. North Carolina statute is not totally like [the Texas rape shield statute], it is similar in many respects and the language in Fortney is here instructive. “Of course rape shield statutes should not be used to exclude highly relevant evidence and violate the defendant’s right of confrontation or other constitutional rights.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. LaPointe 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.