843 So. 2d 962 - State v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
June 2016
most recently cited
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 110 So. 2d 654 - Williams v. State · 520 So. 2d 250 - State v. Pettis · 753 So. 2d 29 - Rodriguez v. State · 689 So. 2d 259 - Morton v. State · Bradley 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Application of the “mere subterfuge” or “primary purpose” doctrine focuses on the content of the witness’s testimony as a whole. If the witness’s testimony is useful to establish any fact of consequence significant in the contest of the litigation, the witness may be impeached by means of a prior inconsistent statement as to any other matter testified to. In the words of one commentator, the pivotal question is whether the “party [is] calling a witness with the reasonable expectation that the witness will testify [to] something helpful to the party’s case aside from the prior inconsistent statement.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,”
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.