Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 694 SW2D 299 - State v. Parton

State v. Parton’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
2
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably State v. Harris (1992), State v. Smith (1993)

54 state decisions

2301985199020002010decided

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 Jones v. Nor-Tex Agencies, Inc. · Carroll v. State · United States v. Woods · Harris v. State · Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Pryor

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

  1. “[I]f evidence that the defendant has committed a crime separate and distinct from the one on trial is relevant to some matter actually in issue in the case on trial, and if its probative value as evidence is not outweighed by its prejudicial effect upon the defendant, then such evidence may be properly admitted.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In Harris v. State, 189 Tenn. 635 , 227 S.W.2d 8 (1950) this Court stressed that evidence that the defendant had committed a crime other than that on trial was not admissible unless such evidence tended directly to prove his guilt of the offense with which he was charged and that to render such evidence of another crime relevant to the case on trial, its purpose and its effect must be to show more than the mere fact that the defendant is the kind of person who would not scruple to commit the kind of offense with which he is charged and that probative force could not be accorded to the mere fact that the defendant, either prior or subsequent to the commission of the offense on trial, had committed another like crime.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The State is confusing intent and motive with propensity and disposition to commit a crime. Evidence of other offenses is not admissible for the purpose of showing propensity or disposition on the part of the defendant to commit the crime for which he is on trial.” 694 S.W.2d at 303 .”
    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.