State v. Crooker’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably 52 Ohio App. 2d 1 - State v. Craft (1977), 365 Pa. Super. 332 - Commonwealth v. Lemanski (1987)
15 federal appellate · 20 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.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The question of law involved is of novel impression, and may be put sharply in this form: In ease of the indictment and trial of A., B.,.and C. jointly, and B. takes the stand in his own behalf, is interrogated by his own counsel, and gives testimony clearly incriminating A., has A.’s counsel the right to cross-examine B., or is cross-examination limited to the attorney of the state? “We think, both upon principle and authority, that A.’s counsel has such legal right under the circumstances stated, and that the right of cross-examination is not confined to the state’s attorney.” See, also, Common wealth v. Mullen, 150 Mass. 394 , 23 N. E. 51 , 52.”
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.