Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 691 So. 2d 415 - Hall v. State

691 So. 2d 415 - Hall v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently June 2016

24 state decisions

190199720002010decided

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 645 So. 2d 829 - Chase v. State · Huff v. White Motor Corp. · 574 So. 2d 685 - McQuarter v. State · 529 So. 2d 577 - Johnson v. State · 511 So. 2d 144 - Suan 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[u]nless timely and specific objection is made to allegedly improper testimony, the objection is deemed waived and may not be raised on appeal.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The trial court has broad discretion in allowing or disallowing redirect examination of witnesses. When "the defense attorney inquires into a subject on cross-examination of the State's witness, the prosecutor on rebuttal is unquestionably entitled to elaborate on the matter." ... Because these matters were all "brought out on cross-examination," we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing redirect examination on the matters.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[W]hen a witness is given an opportunity to admit or deny the making of a statement, as he must be, his refusal to admit or deny making the statement opens the door for impeachment.... When a witness fails in any manner to acknowledge the making of a statement, the impeacher is obligated to offer proof establishing the making of that statement, assuming of course, that the issue is relevant.”
    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.