Moncrief v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2002
8 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 Michelson v. United States · Crocker v. State · Zillender v. State · United States v. Winston · Koller 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Character, in the sense in which the term is used in jurisprudence, means the estimate attached to the individual by the community, not the real qualities of the individual as conceived by the witness. In other words, it is not what the individual in question really is, but what he is held to be by the society in which he moves. ‘Character,’ therefore, is to be regarded as convertible with ‘reputation.’ [footnote omitted]. A witness, therefore, who is called to speak to character, — unlike a master who is asked for the character of his servant, — cannot give the result of his own personal experience and observation, or express his own opinion, but in strict law he must confine himself to evidence of more general repute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hedicke 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.