Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 100 Nev. 277 - Ransey v. State

Ransey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
4
states following
September 2004
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2004

10 state decisions

60198419902000decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Davis v. Alaska · Chipman v. Mercer · Crew v. State · United States Scarpelli v. George

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The bias of a witness is always relevant to the factfinder’s assessment of credibility.... A criminal defendant is entitled to cross-examine a witness to expose any facts which might lay a foundation for an inference that the witness’ testimony is influenced by bias or prejudice. ‘Where [the] purpose [of cross-examination] is to expose bias ... [the] examiner must be permitted to elicit any facts which might color a witness’ testimony,’ and the trial court’s usual discretion to control the scope of cross-examination on the question of bias infringes upon the accused’s sixth amendment right of confrontation.... Whether a witness harbors a bias against a class of which the defendant is a member, or against individuals solely because of that class membership, is a relevant question that must be subject to defense cross-examination in a criminal trial. The defendant is constitutionally entitled to confront a witness and conduct cross-examination sufficient to elicit any facts that might support an inference of bias against the class to which the defendant belongs or its member-(citations omitted)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.