Pruitt v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 2018
14 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 United States v. Webster · United States v. Johnson · United States v. Hogan · United States v. Peterman · Smith 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There has always been a danger that a party may attempt to use a prior inconsistent statement under the guise of impeachment for the primary purpose of placing before the jury evidence which is not otherwise admissible and which may be treated as substantial evidence.... A party should not, however, be permitted to use a straw-man ploy to get impeachment evidence before the jury as substantive evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Donald v. State“does not extend to employment of such impeachment as a mere subterfuge to get otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence before the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hughes 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.