820 So. 2d 25 - McCoy v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
May 2017
most recently cited
23 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Solem v. Helm · 567 So. 2d 237 - Johnston v. State · 735 So. 2d 1099 - Colenburg v. State · 618 So. 2d 116 - Stromas v. State · 594 So. 2d 20 - Jackson 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the admission or exclusion of evidence must result in prejudice or harm, if a cause is to be reversed on that account.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Moss v. State · Clarke v. State“[A]bsent an abuse of that discretion, the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“¶ 18. The admissibility and relevancy of evidence are within the discretion of the trial court and, absent an abuse of that discretion, the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal. McCoy v. State, 820 So.2d 25 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App. 2002). As long as the trial court remains within the confines of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence, its decision to admit or exclude evidence will be accorded a high degree of deference. Id. Additionally,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clarke 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.