State v. Kemp’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably State v. Curcio (1983), E. J. Hansen Elevator, Inc. v. Stoll (1975)
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 81 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 O'brien's Petition · Antman v. Connecticut Light & Power Co. · Reilly v. State · Gannon v. State · Norton v. Shore Line Electric Railway Co.
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e have been disinclined ... to extend the privilege of an interlocutory appeal in criminal cases beyond the double jeopardy circumstance. This reluctance stems principally from our concern that to allow such appeals would greatly delay the orderly progress of criminal prosecutions in the trial court.... [T]he opportunity to appeal in such a situation might well serve the purpose of parties who desire for their own ends to postpone the final determination of the issues. ... It has been widely recognized that strict adherence to the final judgment rule is necessary in criminal cases because the delays and disruptions attendant upon intermediate appeal are especially inimical to the effective and fair administration of the criminal law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““They state in their briefs that witnesses before the grand jury were sworn to secrecy and that the defendants cannot therefore ascertain from those witnesses facts relevant to their defense. That is clearly a misunderstanding of the situation. The oath would prevent such witnesses from disclosing what took place in the grand jury room, including the testimony they or others there gave. But it would not prevent them if they so desired from giving to the defendants any information they might have relevant to the prosecution even though it was the same information as to which they testified before the grand jury.” 1 A.2d at pages 763-764.”
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.