Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 143 KAN 273 - Cochran v. Simpson

Cochran v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis

1936

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
5
states following
April 1974
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 1974 · most notably Miller v. Hudspeth (1948), Pinana v. State (1960)

27 state decisions

13019361940195019601970decided

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. Strasburg · Levell v. Simpson · State v. Woodman · Skinner v. Prather · In re Wallace

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

  1. ““The exercise of reasonable judicial discretion which results in a discrimination in the application of a law to those of the same class does not necessarily or generally render the law unconstitutional as depriving one of the equal protection of the law. “The omission or failure of trial judges to make findings of prior conviction or convictions of other defendants under the provisions of the habitual-criminal act (R. S. 1931 Supp. 21-107a) does not in and of itself and without a showing of the discrimination being illegal by reason of its being willful, arbitrary, designed, deliberate, intentional or by concerted action, deprive one in whose case such finding was made of the equal protection of the law or render the law unconstitutional as being in violation of the fourteenth amendment of the United States constitution.” (Syl. f f 1 and 2.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Whenever during the trial of any person on an indictment or information, evidence is introduced to prove that he or she was insane, an idiot, or imbecile, or person of unsound mind, at the time of the commission of the offense, and such person shall be found to have been at the time of the commission of the" offense alleged in such indictment or information, insane, an idiot, an imbecile, or person of unsound mind, and he or she shall be acquitted on that ground, the jury shall so state in the verdict, and the court shall thereupon forthwith commit such person to the state hospital for the dangerous insane for safekeeping and treatment, and such person shall be received and cared for at said institution. . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ ‘A statute enhancing the punishment for a second or subsequent offense is not an ex post facto law merely because the prior offense occurred before the statute in question was enacted or became effective.’ ” (p. 276.)”
    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.