Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 99 Fla. 1032 - Nelson v. State

Nelson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1930

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
3
states following
May 1997
most recently cited

45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 1997 · most notably Steinhorst v. State (1982), 335 So. 2d 280 - Fulton v. State (1976)

45 state decisions

2001930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Wallace v. State · Roberson v. State · Mercer v. State · Griswold v. State · Tully 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"This court has held that, for the purpose of discrediting a witness, a wide range of cross-examination is permitted as a matter of right in regard to his motives, interests, or animus, `as connected with the cause or with the parties thereto,' and in the discretion of the court a like inquiry may be made into the past life and history of the witness when the matters inquired about tend to affect credibility and that the rules which should govern the trial court in exercising its discretion in allowing or disallowing inquiries into collateral matters to affect credibility do not authorize questions to be put for the sole purpose of disgracing the witness, (emphasis supplied) and the court should not allow inquiries into matters which do not tend to affect credibility. The transaction inquired about must be one which bears directly upon the present veracity of the witness. (cit. omit.) . .. "When the character of a witness is gone into, the only proper object of inquiry is as to his reputation for truth and veracity, as neither his general character nor particular phases of character can be gone into." (cit. omit.) "The general rule is that evidence of particular acts of misconduct cannot be introduced to impeach the credibility of a witness." (cit. omit.) "There is no evidence in this case that Philip (the complaining witness) was under the influence of `dope' either at the time he was robbed or at the time of testifying." (cit. omit.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “There is no evidence in this case that Philip (the complaining witness) was under the influence of `dope' either at the time he was robbed or at the time of testifying.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““When the character of a witness is gone into, the only proper object of inquiry is as to his reputation for truth and veracity. * * * ””
    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.