Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 754 P2D 557 - Honeycutt v. State

Honeycutt v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
June 2013
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 2013

5 state decisions

301988199020002010decided

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 Cuyler v. Sullivan · Patterson v. United States · Texas v. Louisiana · United States v. Carlson · Jetton 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The exception does not require the appellant to have actually conducted a cross-examination; instead, it only requires that he be given an opportunity to question the witness.... By requiring an opportunity to cross-examine, 12 0.S8.1981, § 2804 affords protection to the appellant's constitutional right to confront witnesses. [Citations omitted]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “as used in Section 2804(B)(1). However, we believe that this word should be used in its ordinary sense. That is,”
    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.