Nance v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Gann v. State (1964), United States v. Wharton (1970)
2 federal appellate · 84 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 Sherrill v. State · Bass v. State · Lewis v. State · Cathey v. State · Cathey 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Since probably the beginning of time in the trial of cases witnesses have been sequestered by order of the court on motion of counsel on either side. Our earliest reported case on the subject is Nelson v. State, 32 Tenn. 237 . Obviously this rule, or expedient, is designed to detect falsehood as well as to prevent any witness from coloring his, or her, testimony either purposely or through influence by talking to other witnesses and hearing them talk. An interesting discussion and summary of the question under consideration may be found in Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 12th Ed., Anderson, Vol 3 § 840, page 260, et seq. At page 209 of this work, it is said: ‘The violation of the order of sequestration does not in itself make the witness incompetent or compel his exclusion’, citing authorities from many states.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Wicks“.. .[T]his record clearly shows that after the deceased was shot twice, even though the plaintiff in error had a right to defend himself under the circumstances as he saw them at the time, when the plaintiff in error followed the deceased to the rear of the building and then shot him in the head, and this third shot was the shot that caused the death, then clearly under such facts, murder in the second degree could be established.... 210 Tenn. at 332 , 358 S.W.2d at 329 . This issue is without merit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Smith
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.