State v. Burton’s Empirical Analysis
1917
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 1976
10 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 State v. Stewart · State v. Chadwell
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.
““Testimony given at the preliminary examination by a witness who was not present at the trial was read to the jury. It is said the testimony was improperly admitted because the state did not show that the witness was beyond the jurisdiction of the court and did not show reasonable diligence to procure the attendance of the witness. It was sufficient for the state to prove that the whereabouts of the witness was unknown and could not be ascertained after diligent search. (The State v. Stewart, 85 Kan. 404 , 116 Pac. 489 ; The State v. Chadwell, 94 Kan. 302 , 146 Pac. 420 .) The implied finding of the trial court that due diligence had been used to discover and produce the witness is approved.” (p. 62.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Eason
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.